User talk:David Gerard/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 21 March 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)(back)

Contents

[edit] Just wanted to stop by and say

Thanks for trying to keep everything sane at Wikipedia's page on Chelsea Manning. I know that page is madhouse right now. It's a noble thing you're doing. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I haven't touched the article since yesterday afternoon and it's all been talk pages since, so I'm not actually doing anything - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Just being level-headed on a talk page where level-headedness is at a premium is doing plenty, IMHO. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing the Quantum Mind page

You replaced substantive content on the Quantum Consciousness page with childish silliness which dos not serve to educate about then position itself. Don't do that please. Jfraatz (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)jfraatz

Your crankery was rejected on the talk page a year ago - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Look on the talk. I've responded to the objections. PS. using words like "crankery" is only a poisoning the well tactic. Jfraatz (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Jfraatz
I looked, and you're still a crank - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is not an argument. Either provide an argument, or stop trolling. Jfraatz (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Jfraatz

[edit] To Properly Critique Something...

To properly critique a position one must first understand the stated reasons for that position. For example without a look at the Godelian argument or the details of the observer effect one can hardly understand the reasons for the various quantum mind theories put forwards. Strawmans do not do this and provide no educational content. RationalWiki is not simply for trolling. Jfraatz (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Jfraatz

[edit] English makes no sense

Toe a party line? Sounds like it should be kicked, not followed. Gosh darnit. I looked it up and now I sit here with a head shake. Zero (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can certify that the Engrish are clazy - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Spout a party line, and risk being accused of being a teapot. Elsewhere, one may prick his finger, but not the other way round, at least not on nationally broadcast TV in the US. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You probbably, know this, and this is probably an inside joke I'm missing (which is more than common), but it's 'tow", to pull. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Outside Joke Zero (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Last time I was sitting on an animal with a head shake, I had to pull on the reigns to let it know who was boss. That's what you use to stop them with, instead of breaks like on a car. To make them go, you kick em in the slats, but that's a horse of a different hue and cry. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Sophisticated theology

Today I tried to improve the wording of the Sophisticated theology page. Before that the article had been neglected since April, can you think of ways to improve it? The less sophisticated version, Atheism Wiki on Sophisticated theology risks catching up with the RationalWiki article, Google ranks it third. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Google's search results are customized to the person, so mostly it just means that Google is aware you visit Atheism Wiki a lot. Search the same thing (without logging in to your Google account) on a public library computer and you'll almost certainly get a different result. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 18:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I get the same result on library computers. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The easy way to see how non-biased browser would display results is to look up Sophisticated theology on duck duck go--Weirdstuff (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Going by that, RationalWiki's sophisticated theology page is only on the second page of results, and Atheism Wiki doesn't even show up in the first five pages. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just shows you how much Google screws with your confirmation bias.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Moving template formatting to the skin CSS pages

I introduced this on the forum, but no one responded. I figure I should ask before I start moving the formatting. All that I'm going to do is copy it. The purpose is for the templates to work with multiple skins, and skins of different colors and layouts, should people redesign their own skin. I'm planning to recommend some of the Vector based skins once I finish them so that users can use them if they want. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 16:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Goat polio

That goat polio is serious business, and I think covering up the scalar wave cure would be a huge disservice to the community. - GrantC (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] TOW

I see you've been Ainsworthed at TOW. Remember, ArbCom does not care what you've done in the past, only what they see from you whilst they are paying attention. Do not respond to your Ainsworthing, or he'll win. Hipocrite 17:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, my motivations are as pure and independent as the driven snow - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
As a professional psychic, I can verify that Mr. Gerard is a pure-minded saint who's never had a foul thought in his life. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I concur. I have remotely read his aura, and it shows him to be a man utterly without stain or reproach. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Krej did some tele-reiki which got it a bit mucky, though I think I've cleansed it - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I can fix that. *zoom*--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for blog post

Would the conclusion of my alt-med essay be good for a blog post entitled "What's the Harm?"--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not! - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] TOW, this time here

Please check out the last changes to Wikipedia. It's on a familiar matter. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Your work on the Blog

I understand you write the blog entries, so I would like your input. I'm slowly working on the Dead Links, and I'm going to try working on them by priority -are there any articles you're going to be using that I should also be looking at and prioritize? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't posted anything in months. I would pick dead links to work on by personally feeling like it - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense , but as I have no preference, I figured I might as well go by high-priority articles and work my way down. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Bitcoin

Because you are the local "expert" on that: Bitcoin got OsakaSunned. Please check if the result is still correct and readable.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Osaka's ridiculous overlinking hasn't actually made it wrong - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Your depraved sex acts

In regards to your depraved sex acts, they will end you in hell.— Unsigned, by: 114.78.0.41 / talk / contribs

As a domestic suburban father in the UK, my perversion is Homebase - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is full of Fat Atheists, I rest my case and my point is proven. — Unsigned, by: 114.78.0.41 / talk / contribs

[edit] Roko's userbox

Thought you might enjoy this:

Roko
This user—or an artificial recreation thereof—will probably be tortured for eternity by a future artificial intelligence for not giving all his money to Singularity research.

Template:User Roko

I'm not sure how I'm going to end up: either eaten by Cthulhu, sent to hell by Yahweh or eternally tortured by the giant global Google brain for not believing in it hard enough. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] An evening of magic and mindreading

Thanks to the wonders of advertisements when one tries booking a vacation, I came across this wonderful bundle of joy and thought you might get a chuckle out of it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There was also a music journalist who was pissed off he couldn't get a Wikipedia article. I pointed him at my AFD - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Enjoy

Pump and dump. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly do you propose we do?

About the mission discussion, I mean. The sarcasm is nice and all, but what do you actually want? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Others seem to have had no problem understanding: that a programme whose effect will be to drive away the few remaining actual content contributors is a bad idea. This doesn't require a detailed plan to say - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
And you're referring to PSL's program, I take it? Or are you saying my proposal would have that effect? Sorry if I seem dim, it's late and I'm tired. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 11:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Weird autoblock

I saw a recent notice about upgrading the MediaWiki version. Maybe this problem I've encountered is an unanticipated bonus, maybe not.

Just now I was autoblocked by an edit filter while trying to fix a table format bug in my User space (I seldom work outside User:). The edit would have created a new external link to Conservapedia, and from the block message it appears to have been mistaken for linkspam. While I haven't looked at the source of the filter in question and have no interest in doing so, it looks possible that the filter has a "false positive" bug, possibly concealed prior to recent upgrades.

As I'm an admin I was able to unblock, so I'll continue editing and will update you here if I'm autoblocked again. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea as to the abuse filter stuff. Edit filters should not autoblock ... I'd have thought ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It's the spam filter. Without it the place would be underwater, but it's not perfect and I think I screwed a condition up. I'm sorry,Tony. I will monitor it today. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No harm done. I think I lost a single edit that turned out to be an error anyway. --Tony Sidaway (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Jesus

Depends on how you define "church." Church buildings, or communities of believers. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Hi David, I have nominated you for a position on the board. I did this because you have demonstrated commitment to the project and show remarkable levels of competency. I've even forgiven you for calling me Marcus Cicero. I have a feeling you might be too busy to serve on the board, but please consider the nomination seriously as I believe your expertise would be invaluable. Tielec01 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Webshite

Thank you!--ADtalkModerator 16:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Doctor Dark (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
+1--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You are all most welcome. Yours from FACIST OPRESORRS FOR BETER RITING - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Rape apology

What is your justification for removing my edits to the rape apology article? PaulMurrayCbr (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am actually Hitler. No, wait. - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, I actually looked at the edit. (For you it was an ARROGANT SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM, for me it was Tuesday. [Well, technically Friday. But anyway.]) You threw in what appeared to me to be a piece of non sequitur complaint of free speech or branding or oppression or something which seemed to me to miss every conceivable point of what the fuck the article was about. So I went "wut" and removed it.
It is philosophically possible I was wrong. As such, if you're quite upset, I suggest posting it to the talk page and asking what people other than me think of including it - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That edit made no sense. I'd be more concerned how someone could justify not removing it. Begging the question certainly doesn't apply because rape apology has nothing to do with any specific influence and more about the sweeping dismissal of the entire class of crime. So even if any particular incident in question is not rape, particularly galling, insulting, mindless, or dismissive comments regarding it would almost surely be still classed as rape apology. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There's already a discussion - Talk:Rape apology#in rhetoric. I suggest copying Armondikov's very relevant comment there.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Still monkeys

Was this rollback a misclick, or are you giving the same solid "no" to all seven intervening edits? --Gurneyslade (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it ... yeah, all those changes were somewhere between nonimprovement and disimprovement - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Even removing the "I saw this in a local newspaper" gag about a second-division British football team? Eh. I'll raise the cousin Bob bit on the talk page, as I'm not sure the quote given makes the point it's trying to. --Gurneyslade (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Yo, About Hovind

I'm really serious; you should get Ken White over at Popehat to raise the Popehat signal. (I'm surprised his site is blocked under the spam filter here and that we don't have an article on him.) The signal is raised specifically to see if anyone can pro bono against a SLAPP suit like this. Ken's a huge defender of free speech. I'm pretty certain he'd be happy to help. --Castaigne (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised his blog is blocked under the spam filter too. (Probably fans of Clark, the Goofus of Popehat.) I expect the board shall duly consider it, if Kent can ever advance this case to the point where he can serve the RMF properly - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Martin

Looks like Martin has purged the Internet Archive of content from his various websites, leaving a number of the article's claims essentially unverifiable. Examples: [1], [2]. As the one who originally did the r&d on this article it might be easier for me to just strip this stuff out, should you think it's a good idea (IMO, there's enough for a useful and informative article without it). Leuders (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Annoying that we didn't get screen captures. The first page is still there and capturable. You might want to capturebot the rest - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, give me a summary of how to capturebot, I'll take it from there. Leuders (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Capturebot2. I think it's working, I don't actually control the box it lives on (though Trent does) - if it doesn't work, post to technical support - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It works, but it can't get the pages that are now 404. Leuders (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. If archive.is doesn't have them and there's no other evidence, there's little to show, unfortunately. Could note the removed bits in talk - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Be good to get KM to specify exactly which bits in the article he has a beef with, and go from there. Leuders (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Be good not to let an anonymous IP editor dictate website content, too. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It would, but even a hypothetical gibbering lunatic with an utterly frivolous and incompetent lawsuit can cost us a few thousand dollars (which is very little lawyer time) to get rid of. And really, we should make sure our claims are robust enough to stand up to a casual inspection - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, some of his "issues" might be relatively easy fixes. For example, he complained on the Talk page about the "Arson" section, and also the title of an EL to a NWS Statement, and both were fixed and bulletproofed without compromising the essential thrust of the article. Leuders (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Yudkowsky Page

Hey there David, maybe you'll respond to me where WatcherintheDark did not about the Yudkowsky page.

I'm pretty new around here, had a friend link me to RationalWiki and I've enjoyed some of the articles. It's nice to see a place that tries to put a more "unbiased" and rational perspective on things, while maintaining a good sense of humor.

When I got to the Yudkowski page though, a lot of it seemed to go beyond mere snark and into actual attacks. "Woah," I thought. "This guy must be really messed up."

So I looked into the claims the page makes. I read many of the articles mentioned on the page. I read the short story and discussion that followed. I explored LessWrong and got familiar with what is and isn't believed by the community in general and Yudkowsky in specific.

Then, thinking that someone had simply made some mistakes, I made some edits to the Yudkowsky page to better reflect what I'd learned. Because while there are some clear criticisms to make, much of it was incredibly exaggerated to the point of being simply false.

When I came back a few days later, the changes had all been reverted. Not just one or two: all of them, blanket reverted. As if to say "no one can touch this page."

I asked WatcherintheDark what was up, and got no response.

So a week of waiting later, I changed things back, and now you've changed them back again.

So I'm asking you now: why were these changes reverted? Do you have a reason for why every change I made wasn't acceptable, or is this site really just another Conservapedia from a different angle, where what's true matters less than what makes a good narrative?

Because if the narrative is supposed to be "Yudkowsky is an eccentric with some questionable ideas and a conflated sense of self-importance," that seems true enough. The narrative I see instead is "Yudkowsky is anti-science and asserts that cryogenics works, and also he might be for rape, not saying he is, just putting that out there."

Which, if you'd care to do any research at all on any of those claims, you'll know are all wrong. It took me about 15 minutes of research to find blatantly false narratives being spun about someone, and twice now the edits to his page have been reverted without explanation.

So tell me, as a new user on this site, why should I trust any of the articles on here for anything? How do I know Deepak Chopra's page isn't full of falsehoods that someone with a vendetta put up? How do I know Ken Ham is being accurately lambasted if falsehoods are mixed in with accurate criticisms? Why should I link my other friends to this wiki, knowing there are edit warriors on here who might be more interested in their vendettas than the truth?

I look forward to your response, as I really would like to enjoy this wiki. Thanks!

As a LW regular, I'm probably more sympathetic than many. I certainly don't claim to speak for all. I think the article could do with a citation-blitz at the least - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page of the article big dog - you'll get a better response there. I agree that the page is problematic; mostly because there isn't much notable about Yudkowsky so the writers had to exaggerate a bit to create a narrative. Tielec01 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. If LW/MIRI seriously regards anything on RW as problematic to their mission, that's the universe telling them to actually achieve something the world will notice - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Should I start a Talk on that page then? I was hoping you could give some feedback as to what was wrong with my edits, as it doesn't seem to me that the changes I made are controversial: they were mostly to clean up the uncited accusations of "What Yudkowsky believes" that aren't actually in line with what I could find. But I'd be happy to defend each edit line by line on the Talk page if necessary, and see if someone could come up with better sources for the narrative that it spins.
Perhaps one problem is that the LW-related articles have been worked on by a small minority of individuals that were single-minded LW detractors, and pro-LW editors tend to spurn RW entirely and cryptically bitch about the place elsewhere (not naming names, Yvain). Meanwhile, the ones with more mediated views on LW and Yudkowsky (e.g., myself and David) haven't done much editing to them in a while and so we've let the citations slide a lot (my editing dropped to zero in the past year and is only just picking up again). Any help with improving that is always appreciated greatly! We've done a bit of work looking into Roko's Basilisk, but that will be pretty meaningless if we can't at least get the core articles up to scratch, too. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 11:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Roko's basilisk explains the core LW memeplex better than the main article does - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
So what's the standard action, here? Make a new topic at the bottom of the page and start listing the changes I originally made and reasons why, wait X amount of time for rebuttals, then make those changes that don't have any? Or is that something a person with more weight would do? And should I make an account first?
Make an account (it always gets more credibility), discuss changes on the talk page. Just like Wikipedia, RW is literally not run by anyone, so you actually have to convince the majority of whatever bozos show up - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I found a video about your profession

I'm so sorry. I didn't know. (Actual lecture part is 43 minutes.) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 07:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience article

Because you reverted the gold brainstar: You probably also want to delete Template:Cover abstract/Pseudoscience.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, having that ahead of time is fine, as long as it's not in the rotation in Template:Coverstory - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "(shudder) that's pretty wrong." "This strongly suggests the problem is in you"

Can you just lay off, please? Thanks. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "pretty wrong" was in terms of the original text being called "Proxima-level wrong" - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Apologies. I read it as a response to the "if you can critique it you can fix it" comment -- which has the capacity for wrongness, admittedly, if the critique is shite. Again, apologies for mis-reading you. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "I think you're assuming again that if you're not personally interested then something's not work (sic) knowing about..."

David, I really wish you would stop making broad assumptions about my interests and my political positions by extrapolating in a clumsy and uninformed way from my specific arguments. I am, whether you believe it or not, quite interested in trans issues generally and specifically the gap between a broad and inclusive approach to feminist practice and theory on the one hand and TERF-ism on the other. I've read a fair amount on the topic, and have had many discussions with people who are personally affected by the issues at play in an attempt to learn what I can. I don't know why you think I wouldn't.

But just because I think something is worth knowing about doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be part of the RW project. There are lots of things I know about that I don't think should be part of the RW project. Same goes for you, I expect.

You don't like me? Fine. I can live with that. You disagree with me? Okay, let's discuss, or let's ignore each other. I can go either way. But I find it at least a little hurtful that you paint me with a broad brush based on a tiny portion of my being. Come on by the house, browse the bookshelves, see what I'm immersing myself in. Stop by when my friends are over and we're talking social and political issues. I'll put whatever you like to eat on the grille, and you can get a more complete idea of what me, my interests, and my politics are about, and then make snarky comments about me from an informed position. But a comment like this might as well be about someone else, because that ain't me, babe.

Peace, Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Brx and Nutty chime in

Perhaps you should write an essay?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Except, your essay is so insincere and riddled with problems that it's impossible to take you seriously, not that you were worth it for some time before we learned you're an unapologetic racist. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Now, Nutty, what did we tell you about being coherent?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a talk with Miekal regarding user's talk pages

Miekal is cluttering up my talk page with loads of nonsense rather having the talk in the article's main page. As you noted "really, it's on the ball. also, you don't protect to a preferred version then say "let's discuss lol"" and he has blocked the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ again after you edited it I think a little talking to regarding his behavior is needed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually recognize what david put back in was ok, the protection was more for your edit war with weasel and the fact i actually did want you to talk it out on the talk page.--Miekal 07:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Discourse

What I'm looking for is actual discourse here. You might think I have an agenda that's not being stated, but I really don't. If you want me to substantiate that, then I will, and I'm more than willing to open a dialogue on this subject. What I don't understand is why my explanation of my opinions warrants the response you provided, and based on the substance of your statement, I have to question whether there's any possible way I could have worded what I said that wouldn't have fallen under your definitions of othering and tone trolling.

I strongly believe in the principle of having "strong opinions, weakly held." I am forthright and firm in my beliefs and opinions, but given evidence against one of those opinions, and beliefs, then I'm more than happy to change my opinion and admit that I was incorrect. I'm not sure if you're lumping me in with Ace and friends, or if you've generated some other opinion of me based on my prior comments, but I would encourage you to rethink whatever opinion that might be and actually engage with me on this. - Grant (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I think you're approaching this from "what do we do about this other, separate group" - the people in that group just got treated that way, and a programme that doesn't actively involve them from the start is, from very recent observable experience, unlikely to fly - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, that's a valid criticism, and one I didn't think about when writing what I wrote. I will amend my statement in that discussion to reflect that I was wrong to approach it that way, and to make it clear that my interest in discourse is not predicated on saying "the people in the Facebook group are bad!" I believe very strongly in the aims of the RMF, and expanding the RMF's reach. - Grant (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That's really, really what I'm actively doing there. e.g. Larron has documented the decline in RW editors in the past three years - I'm actively recruiting, really bloody hard - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and I know you've been pushing to bring Facebook editors here. I think this experience showcases an issue within the RW and RW FB community that goes beyond something as simple as "new guard vs. old guard", and I think it offers a good opportunity to bring the discussion out in the open and think about how best to move forward. Weaseloid's point that in a few months this will be forgotten is probably accurate, but I don't want that to be the case. There's a blueprint for growth in here, and I would love to get a dialogue started on how to achieve that. - Grant (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
e.g. I think the best way to show that genderwiki articles are reasonable stuff is the existence proof method: make them really bloody good and obviously skeptical material. The proponents are working on just that, so that's good. e.g. The FB group attracts SHITLOADS of people, so links to wiki articles are useful things. (Same approach I take with the @rationalwiki twitter.) And so on. More tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've said this several times - RW is different in a good way, because we for some strange ass reason, seem to be somewhere reasonable on the "i'm an atheist and I don't really wanna deal with whiny women" side that is so prevalent in science, atheist, "rational" type blogs. WE actually talk with women instead of about them (or worse, ignoring them in the words of "equality"). And that matters to me. But it's always a fight against a sorta "type" that gets offended when you start in on "women have unique issues" (as do lots of other minorities, and i think we remember that, too). I had my runins with Ace in another life time, when I was working on mansplaining, as he spent days getting offended that I would dare claim "men" do this. It would be a tragedy if we shut down the gender issues, cause then we will become the same as "the rest" of the boys patting themselves on the back (or so it seems and feels) gangs.One tin soldier (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
So is there a widely held feeling among women contributing to RW that there's an "old boys' club" at play here? Obviously if that's the case (whether real or perceived), that's a problem that needs to be addressed. I think this kind of discourse is important and very valuable to the future of RW. For now, I'll stop cluttering David's talk page and move my thoughts to the forum. - Grant (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please be careful reading what I said. *I* had my run-ins with ace. i don't know that there is a widly held view about anything here, by women. I don't know that there are a lot of women around to hold such views. I'm just saying there *is* a widely held view outside of RW that this is a "safeish" or "safer" place to come than some other places.One tin soldier (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Apologies for that, I assumed the implication was that other people felt this way. That's a fair point then. - Grant (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, I agree entirely with you on that. I'm more than content to see some of these articles come to fruition and then see what effect they have. I think a problem the RW community as a whole suffers from is the habit of jumping to conclusions about an editor's viewpoints based on a comment or two (I guess a form of groupthink). As an example, you had a valid criticism about the way I was approaching this discourse, and I'm happy to admit I was wrong and change tack to compensate. If I had a thinner skin, perhaps I would have been offended and walked away from the conversation, and this discourse wouldn't even be happening. I mean hell, what I'm saying right now might be wrong, and if you point out to me why that is, I'll change this opinion too! In that vein, I think Ace and RNS bring up a valid point that the FB group could get quite nasty at times, and I think RW suffers from the same issue. And yes, for the record, this also means I find it problematic when folks like Ace and RNS decide the best option is to nuke a Facebook group. It wasn't right of me to single out the Facebook group, and I didn't think about it that way when I started the discussion. That's where I'm at though. Thoughts? - Grant (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The present forum post is a toxic waste dump and I don't really consider it anywhere useful work will happen. It's also important to note that Ace's accusations against Olivia are lies and bullshit, but he's stating them over and over as if this will make them true; if you start from the assumption there's something in them, you're fundamentally going to be just incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This may strike you as an odd thing for me to say, but I'm not terribly interested in Ace's accusations against Olivia. I don't mean that they should be dismissed, or that Ace should just be given a free pass if his accusations hold no merit; rather, I mean that my points are based on my own observations, not the claims of others. I also agree that the forum post is cascading downhill. My suggestion then is that we build a place where this kind of productive discussion can happen. - Grant (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Basically, in the FB group we have a huge and active pile of people who are interested in something called "RationalWiki" which deals with stuff like is dealt with on the wiki; there are several hundred in the new group (a bit over a day after it was started) and the old one peaked at 6000. There's 30-40 new members every day. If we don't see this as a huge opportunity and use it, then we're asleep at the wheel - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree there, and it seems obvious to me that some thought needs to be put in to minimizing friction when it comes to overlap in these communities. They will always be different by their nature (Facebook is a far different beast from a wiki), but everyone involved has the same aims and goals. There are many things about RW that can make contributing here daunting. I know the same could be said for the Facebook group for different reasons. I know I was more willing to participate in RW because I could maintain my relative anonymity (though I was still intimidated enough by the environment here to hold off for a year before joining), whereas I've been leery of joining the Facebook group because that anonymity would be lost. On the other hand, I'm sure there are people with the exact opposite quandary: turned off by the environment on the wiki but perfectly fine with how things are done on the Facebook group. I know that some discussion has focused on a "rift" in the community, wherein the common thought from some folks seems to be that it's one side or the other. I don't think that's a healthy attitude though. I have some more thoughts on the matter, but I'm overdue for sleep and would rather depart before becoming nonsensical. - Grant (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"You might think I have an agenda that's not being stated, but I really don't." See my post, above, for more on this. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me you weren't in the Blunt Knives inanity - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I imagine you're referring to Father Vivian, but nonetheless, if you're referring to me, I was not. - Grant (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was asking him - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was not. I was off FB for more than a year, was never really involved in the RW page when I was on it, and while I recently started a new account to keep in touch with a couple of local groups I belong to (one being my church, the other a bike club, if you must know), I did not pay any attention to anything having to do with RW. For me, it's a wiki-only thing. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] What i wanted to ask...

Oh, David, the reason I came to your page wasn't to talk about the "discourse", but to ask what a tone troll is. One tin soldier (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tone troll - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts

So a cursory look around the wiki suggests that quite a few wiki editors seem to fall somewhere along the apathy-disgruntlement line about this whole FB issue, and on more than one occasion I've seen "scrap the group" as a suggested response. This break also doesn't seem to follow the old guard vs. new guard line very clearly. I think we can both agree that the FB group is very important to RW's and the RMF's mission, and scrapping it would be a terrible idea. On the other hand, leaving things as they are will only fuel another explosion later. What are your thoughts on how this schism can be mended moving forward? I have a few of my own, but if at all possible, I would like to hear yours first, as you've been around this wiki far longer than I have. - Grant (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As was literally just proved, "scrapping" it is an impossible idea. At least imposed from outside.
The FB group is not actually worse in any way than the behaviour of the people complaining about it on the wiki itself, as you note in the forum.
Going forward, basically what I've already said above - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I also feel that even attempting to scrap it would be a bad idea. I noted what I did in the forum, however, because I believe that lack of civility isn't a good thing. I'm not sure how much can be done to foster change on the wiki, given that this is a mobocracy and that is unlikely to change. I feel as though Facebook provides opportunities to foster a better community, since there is no tradition shackling the group to the idea that one must be an asshole to stick around at RW, and moderation can actually mean something.
It could be said that recruiting more editors to the wiki would allow the troublesome and uncivil editors around the wiki to eventually be crowded out (removed by attrition, if you will), but I'm not certain how effective that will be if the behaviour and attitude on the Facebook group is just as bad as the behaviour of the editors they will be replacing. - Grant (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think humans are stroppy and opinionated, particularly arguing in a pile, and this may be incurable. It's still less stabby than Wikipedia (let alone hives of scum and shittiness like Greenpeace, or ICANN); moblike nonprofit governance in general may tend to the stabby, I'm appalled to say. That said, people are coming to edit, and specifically having been lured over from the FB group. I guess the proof will be in the content - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the first part (that people are stroppy and opinionated, and moblike governance is a large part of this kind of environment). I also agree that the proof will be in the content to a large extent. I do believe, however, that there's potentially more we can do to cultivate a more civil culture outside of RW. RW itself may very well be a lost cause in that sense, or at least certainly changing it directly will be. In fora outside of RW, however (such as the Facebook group), I don't think this need be the case. A set of ground rules for civility and a set of admins willing to enforce them could go a long way to ensure that discourse elsewhere remains somewhat more civil. This could create a nice snowball effect in which the editors coming from Facebook into RW might carry those principles forward, and eventually outnumber the "wild west" proponents here on the wiki.
Note that I'm not saying the Facebook group is specifically poorly behaved or anything of the like. After looking over the Facebook group, I think I would go so far as to say that RW as a whole is worse on the face of things. The only thing that makes it appear as though RW is better is that most of the drama and angst is lost in the bowels of the wiki, and only someone patrolling recent changes will find it. On the other hand, Facebook is far more public, and drama there is drama for the entire world to see.
On the other hand, I did just read (a few seconds ago) your post in the Facebook group mentioning the issues with moderation (e.g. Facebook's tools being absolute garbage). I can agree with that, and I can understand how moderating the group would be me work than it would be worth. However, you also mention that people being dicks will be banned. That's a good policy if it's enacted like it sounds like. When I browse the old group and look around at some of the nastiness going on there, I see plenty of dickishness that wasn't stopped by the administrators. I'm not sure if it's groupthink, but I see a parallel here on RW, where editors have a tendency to gang up on anyone expressing that they might not agree with our views on something. Sometimes they're just misinformed, but that doesn't stop editors from piling on with that "DRINK!" meme and sometimes scaring away people who could easily be convinced to change their views. It would be nice if the Facebook group's administration worked to prevent this. - Grant (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I know way better than to even sidle up to promising a happy land of flowers and bunnies for all. Complaints will not stop whatever is or is not done. They just won't.
Also, you're still talking about how to run the FB group on the wiki rather than in the FB group. This approach may not be effective, for fairly obvious reasons.
That said, HERE'S TO UNIVERSAL LOVELINESS. If we say to everyone not to be dicks, that'll work, right? - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No, complaints won't stop; that is indeed true. That said, I think the closer we can get to happy flower bunny land, the better.
Well, yes and no. I'm talking about ideas/suggestions for running the FB group here with you in a relatively private setting (as much as anything can be private on a wiki) for the purpose of bouncing ideas off of you and getting your opinion on the subject. Not everything I say on this subject needs to be directly geared towards fomenting immediate change, after all. I have made similar comments in that forum more or less in response to the discussion. That said, there does appear to be a discussion going on in the Facebook group about whether any new rules or what-not would be voted on and such. Ultimately it's up to the administrators' discretion whether fascism is the way to go (using the word jokingly as done on the group, by the way), but if it is, then I think these might be things worth thinking on.
Ah, if only universal loveliness were a thing. I've spent a non-trivial amount of my life among scientists, and it's hard to find a group of people with larger egos. Change doesn't come easily. - Grant (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] You and Lager!

Top lel ·Femilisk 21:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

[[[Gendering intensifies]]]---Dgener8 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
May I note my love for everyone - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
[[[Breathing intensifies]]] ·Femilisk 14:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
[[[Puts on his Batman costume and maintains eye contact]]] - User:PsychoGecko 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop status?

Hi David,

I've heard that sysop status is handed out like candy here. I also wanted to edit an article, but the article has been locked because of silliness.

If at some point you decide I'm not a Conservapedian in disguise, I would be delighted to join your merry band of sysops. --Chriswaterguy (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You can be a sysop if you join my project. \sarcasm ·Femilisk 14:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I was about to adjudge you "probably not insane", but someone else did. Welcome! - David Gerard (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing

Thanks for catching that extra undo on the WLC article. Is there a way to undo multiple prior edits? I thought I was, but apparently not. MarmotHead (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I just happened to see that one. If it's just one user, rollback works - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Ballad of Big Yud

He don't carry no gun, just a theorem called Bayes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] How could I gain your support?

I would like your endorsement and am willing to do further work for it. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Content, quality, taste - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
In terms of contents I won't have much to add after going through the advocates list of homophobes. In terms of quality, I'll take the time to proof read thoroughly and stop double and triple posting to make spelling grammatical corrections. In terms of taste I would reckon we may be more alike than not, given we are some of the few here who don't despise dolphins. That seems to me like I've 2 out of 3. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody noticed us (and I can't keep up)

Because of a significant amount of sources that we haven't yet listed in RW Mentions (plus European Journal of Science and Theology, Evolution: Education and Outreach, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, and Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics and other foreign-language journals) should there be a separate section for research papers and books that cite us? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Who wrote this crap?"

Are you kidding me? Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I knew the answer. If said editor ever touches the article again I'll just revert - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
She's getting to be too persistent for people to manage her edits. This is not the only article on the wiki she has edited, and not all of them have been repaired--"Shut up, Brx." 17:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Geller's physical appearance

Pam's looks are not the problem; her BS, hate, and charlatanism are. There is no need for us to make fun of her looks; we have plenty of other things to make fun of her for :) Rand0 (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The caption was nothing to do with her looks; it was to do with the shitty quality of the photo, and that this was literally the best she could submit to Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Grover Furr?

I don't care who that is (yet), but any article that mentions someone with such a name already is on my favorite list! That article you're working on is going to be fun! MarmotHead (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He has that going for him - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I see now that he's a massive idiot but, still ... that name! MarmotHead (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Filter settings

I was doing some tests on a filter I just created, and tripped it a couple times with my IP as part of the test. Looks to me like, based on what the results were, that the server is still set to block IPs that trip the filter indefinitely. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

hrm, that's annoying (and useful). Thanks, I'll have a look - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, bingo! That setting only came in in 1.20 or 1.21 - we're still running 1.19. Bah. I'll set it to 314159 seconds for all for now - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] WIGO:BLOG item

Somehow I don't think we're talking this to death here... [3]. --Marlow (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Voltaire Fan, are we?

I see you editing the other wiki...wanna see a strange picture of him with me? Zero (talk - contributions) 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, go on - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
[4] and [5]! Enjoy. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Omniscience

Hi David, just a few weeks ago, I thought I'd add some interesting perspectives on the paradoxes related to omniscience (see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Omniscience#No_easy_contradiction.3F). But I realized that I do not know whether what I want to add is "allowed". Therefore, I started a talk and expected that somebody would use it to edit the main article. However, the discussion that ensued is now in a deadlock (we're merely repeating the same things without getting anywhere). I need some advice on how to proceed. I found you as one of the moderators.

My questions are:

- can I use any of my points in the main article (I believe it is incomplete)?

- How can I resolve the use of "silly" for my arguments?

- Who is able / allowed to edit the main article?

- Can I use talk to suggest changes to the article? If so, what are possible follow up actions and who is going to take them?

If you read the talk, maybe you can give me some advice on this (your) page? Cuc (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] So long and thanks for all the fish

Glad I contributed to The Guide. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] you know

you don't already need to assume im being a dick just because i havent said anything right then and there--Miekal 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Though apparently with this one i was being a dick, because i cponfused the difs and thought he was adding something instead of removing--Miekal 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
dICK bUTT - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus Citations

Try actually reading my citations next time. Ted Rall's defenses of Putin, the invasion of Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad, Rand "the most liberal politician in America" Paul, Hugo Chávez, and truthers are right the fuck there. *Asterisk* (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering your previous citations turned out to actually be a pack of bullshit, you're not exactly starting from zero here - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Just letting you know that the first link of your recent Blogosphere addition goes to the reddit inbox: [6] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

D'OH!! - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] en.wikipedia.org question

You still on Wikipedia, en.wikipedia that is? I believe the user known as MilitaryPro is sockpuppeting again. Granted, not all sockpuppets on Wikipedia were me, and this probably sounds hypocritical me discussing sockpuppets, but still, many were imitators, e.g. Dieseldrinker, King Abdullah on Wheels, Sunfazer, Sunholm/Solumeiras/whatever-the-hell-they-call-themselves-next-on-Wikipedia (that account that is NOT WILLY ON WHEELS despite what some Wikipedians firmly claim), Barneybumble, PowerPills, Katrina and Waves, you'll know some of them from the block log. Oh, and on my own wiki, current en.wikipedia bane Instantnood committed a spree of pagemoves but they were far more offensive than on wheels titles... they were long Chinese phrases apparently meaning "is a stupid nationalist" or 是一个愚蠢的民族主义 Either way, I'm not on en.wikipedia for now, an ArbCom appeal rejected by of all people, Jpgordon. Pagemoves aren't quite as much fun as they were a decade ago. The account on here called Willy on Wheels is a hoaxer, not me. --Willy on Wheels now with Scouse wheels (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hai, sensei

I will try to be worthy.MatsFan (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Could you do a page move of Genesis: Where Creation and Evolution Collide to Genesis 3D? I tried but can't do it. — Unsigned, by: Savingarizona / talk / contribs

Looks like someone's helpfully done it - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Well, you're on the board, and you're influential

Have you received the email I sent you? Well, the problems have evolved since. Have you looked at the Chicken Coop, and Talk:All thing in moderation? There's some shit going on again. It might take you a bit to sort through, I'm afraid.

The gist of it is, I've been blocked and had my user rights removed by Nutty Roux/Former Editor and Reckless Noise Symphony. Opinions and what not can be found on User talk:Tielec01 and User talk:Reckless Noise Symphony, as well as the coop and ATIM.

Also, Nutty Roux's gone and locked a bunch of things, to prevent me from editing through proxies. Seems pretty fucked up, from my point of view.--SillyBrx (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hey quick question for you about the origins of metal in sub saharan africa

Was it indigenous to the region or was it introduced from up north because I am debating this racist and I provided her this source. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hia.2005.0003 This was her response "I'm on the side of history, you however, aren't on anyone's side but your own, that's why you resorted to insults.

"has an African origin dating to before 1000 BCE"

Yah that really explains a lot. Your source doesn't provide evidence of smelting before 1,000 years. It just throws a figure out there and expects everyone to believe it. Your source doesn't offer a single foot note except for a linguist who is not an archaeologist and another archaeologist that says it's a hypothesis - which you have ignorantly accepted as fact. And just what did these sub-Saharan Negroids create with this iron? Nothing so much as a door hinge.

One of the earliest smelted iron artifacts known is a dagger with an iron blade found in a Hattic tomb in Anatolia, dating from 2500 BC Cowen 2010


" there is no such thing as the white race. "

Then I guess there is no such thing as the black race either. Damn, you must have been born without an optical nerve to not see the difference in race. No wonder you need glasses. Better double up on that prescription, four eyes.

You don't come to my video and disrespect me and my people you ass." The video for this debate is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqEjTqoYNfw.

I tried this source but I am not sure how reliable it is. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/history_in_africa/summary/v032/32.1alpern.html Not only that I found this rebuttal "This is an interesting essay about the case for and against against iron working originating in sub-Saharan Africa. In essence it picks apart some of the very early dates, showing them to be more the product of wishful thinking and poor archeological practises. Most notably, dating a buried object in Niger from a potsherd found on the surface (very poor practise) and the common use of ancient charcoal to smelt iron giving false antiquity to artifacts, and the lack of calibration when using carbon 14 dating. It also points out the lack of prior technology that could could have lead to the discovery of iron working, notably that coppper working appeared almost at the same time, and that the pottery was fired in low temperature pit kilns that wouldn’t have produced iron accidentally.

It also notes that the movement of iron technology appears to have been from North to South, with Egypt being one of the last Mediterranean cultures to adopt iron tools, with Turkey being the oldest known site. This is the reverse of what you would see of the technology was of African origin moving Northwards.

So it looks like a Turkish origin for Iron working is still the most likely." Source:http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/iron-working-in-africa/ I would appreciate the help. prophetofreason 04:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Err

Sorry for being unclear, I sent an email at your gmail account (and to certain other board members) concerning certain matters, and I was wondering whether that got through, and whether it received any discussion or thought. I suppose that the matter is largely settled now, but only in typical RationalWiki fashion, where nothing much changes or people just move on to avoid further conflict. If you didn't get the mails, and the RMF didn't discuss anything, then I won't pursue the matter. At this point, it's all been aired out on the wiki and if you guys wanted to do anything you'd have done it.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you somehow think I wasn't telling you the truth? Gotta love RW for letting a troll like you stick around long enough that the corporation that owns the site you relish causing trouble on finally has to talk about banning you. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, when I sent out those emails, I don't believe you had said anything about the RMF convening to ban me. "Certain matters" is specifically vague enough to convey my meaning to anyone who read those emails.
But I'm glad that if the RMF is deciding to ban me, they're at least taking their time to reach a decision. Or if they aren't taking their time, then I'm glad they don't see the "threat" as so imminent that they felt the need to hold a meeting sooner rather than later. My only fear is that I may have wasted their time.
@David Gerard: if you could please let me know the results of any RMF discussions concerning me, I would appreciate it. Naturally, that's assuming that the Foundation owes me any information, or is even allowed to give me any information. Otherwise, please don't trouble yourself.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Threat" in square quotes? You're long on condescension and snipes to me, Goonie, and the RMF, but short on contrition about what you did. Here you are fawning at David again. It's interesting that you fought me tooth and nail, yet when David initially commented to say he was oversighting your edits (indicating that they were not appropriate), you admit to him that you were wrong to edit war me. You then rapidly changed your tune to repeatedly call me a liar and argue over whether the content was problematic in the first place. That's been your stance since, as you spread your indignation far and wide. Which is it? I'm not interested in your legal analysis. I want to know whether you did or did not do something wrong regarding posting and edit warring over problematic content. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe I've found success by communicating in lists, so let me explain myself thusly:
  • I fought you "tooth and nail" (ass quotes because I do not consider reverting an edit twice to be "tooth and nail")because when you removed the content from Talk:Kevin Martin, I thought you were just doing another "ugh, brx exists/this topic bores me" Nutty Roux thing. You've certainly reverted me for being me before, and while I admittedly do not recall a precise instance where you reverted a talk page edit just because you didn't like the topic, my idea of you does not preclude you doing this (is my idea of you wrong? Doesn't really matter)
  • I acceded to David Gerard because I remembered him to be a board member (as opposed to Sterile, who is on the board but I did not recall that at the time), he has always been reasonable to me before (as opposed to Sterile), he deliberately made it a point to post with his "RMF board member hat" (as opposed to Sterile), and he said please (as opposed to Sterile). I say "as opposed to Sterile" because it is Sterile who I replied to. After that, I recall logging in only after you, RNS, and DG posted to my talk page.
  • When I admitted to being wrong to edit war you, I admitted to having been wrong in the sense that I believed at the time of admission that I was factually incorrect as to your motives. Minor distinctions, of course.
  • When I changed my stance, it was after you posted on RNS' talk page a clearer explanation of your original motive (alleged original motive- sorry, but I can't think of a way to say that that doesn't come off as offensive to you). Since my sysop rights were restored, I was able to look over the edits that were oversighted and that is when I expressed doubt as to the veracity of your claims. Further arguments ensued.
  • You want to know whether I did or did not do something wrong (in my eyes, I assume)? Ultimately, I still believe that I am correct. My stance has changed several times as new information became available to me, and I can see if this caused confusion. However, I do not wish to further discuss the specifics of what I believe and why I believe it. It is clear that nobody except possibly Tielec01 (whose kindness and patience you should not discount, even if he's directed some of it at me), agrees with me, and that further discussing the topic will only cause more drama, and for nothing.
  • I only went into detail here because you asked me to elucidate
I hope you find this helpful--"Shut up, Brx." 16:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry about edit reversion.

Hello there. Before I had registered, I had made an edit to rational wiki's page on trans exclusionary feminism under it's section about "SWERFS" I'd warmly appreciate an explanation for the revert. In hindsight, I realize I probably should have voiced my concerns in the talk page, but I'm curious as to whether the revert was done because you found the points listed as dubious or simply because I should have consulted others first.

Thanks for your time.

Because you listed lots of "why porn is bad" as if that justified the action of attacking the people in the porn - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an odd conclusion. Can you explain why criticizing participance in pornography or participance in prostitution is an "attack" on them? I thought, at least, that I had made it very clear that the problem is perpetuation of sexist power structures irrespective of personal motivation, i.e. "peoples actions don't exist within a vacuum" not that the people who participate in pornography or prostitution are all bad and shitty people.Baba Yaga (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Baba Yaga

Because the section is about attacks on the people themselves - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't, that was an aside. The section begins by defining a SWERF as someone who opposes women's participation in pornography and prostitution and then compares them with TERFS, making the strong implication that both deserve to be dismissed because they "tell women what to do." and more or less justifies using SWERF as a snarl world to dismiss anyone that's critical of participance in pornography/prostitution. Bah. No matter, I'll drop this since it's of little consequence to me, but I think you're being silly. Have an enchanted day.Baba Yaga (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Baba Yaga

[edit] Standing ovation

Thank you. That was getting ridiculous and tedious to try to filter out. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Given you're largely maintaining the filters, feel free to prod me whenever the kids are getting stupid. From last time the verdict was "only as necessary", but it appears it is while Gamergate is popular. SUCCESS!! - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know I had that option. Thanks. And thanks again. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution and hate speech mysteriously deleted by Ryulong on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia Ryulong called me a fucktard on his talk page when another editor compared me to him; shortly before removing me from the history of the super sentai. I added the category size change, the same as the others yet for some reason it doesn't show in the history. Good thing your a morally responsible editor read by millions of children who majoritively don't know it was you that wrote those words. [7]

Would you prefer I e-mail you on Wikipedia's hate speech problems, or that you pretend this didn't happen because I can't cite what's deleted by the idiot who argued with me to the point of being blocked alongside me, just to preform administrative abuse? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And you write the above while seriously trying to convince people your contributions here are not a waste of people's time - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What was that for, Ryulong actually did that, justice is never a mistake David, as an authority of anything you should know that instead of looking for opportunities to be wrong and snide. Dramatica is right about you being mean aren't they? Don't you have the ability to see deleted contributions or know someone who does have that ability? Why would I have just added that to Ultra Man and Power Rangers? I guess you can always just say I'm making things up instead of bothering to investigate, no one would ever call you on it, unless there's other Wikipedians here reading your page. See the Wikipedia article on Gautama Buddha. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Is having a degree in philosophy enough to make you a philosopher

Hi David,

My point about entitling Craig as a philosopher rather than a philosopher is that Craig's philosophy degree is another example of his "stealth apologetics". Craig has, as far as I know, never dappled in any philosophical matters that weren't directly tied to his apologetics. All of his philosophy is geared towards either outright arguments for the existence of God (e.g. his Kalam which was indeed the topic of his dissertation in philosophy...), or towards defending necessary premises for them (e.g. his philosophy of time which is a necessary to underpin premise 1 of the Kalam). Here is how Craig himself described his motivation for pursuing his Ph.D. in Philosophy:

"So Jan said to me, “Well, if money were no object, what would you really like to do next?”
I replied, “If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to England and do a doctorate under John Hick.”
“Who’s he?” she asked.
“Oh, he’s this famous British philosopher who’s written extensively on arguments for the existence of God,” I explained. “If I could study with him, I could develop a cosmological argument for God’s existence.” (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates)

What Craig didn't mention was that said John Hick also happens to be philosopher of religion and working at the University of Birmingham as a Professor of Theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick). Hick had even started out as an evangelical (if ending up as a more pluralistic) Christian, so Craig not only pursued a philosophy degree solely to "beef up" his apologetics, he deliberately targeted a Ph.D. supervisor who would be unlikely to ask awkward (i.e. critical) questions about this enterprise. The reason I'm not calling Craig a philosopher is the same as why I wouldn't call someone a carpenter who has been trained as a carpenter, but also trained as and solely worked as a mason.

ScepticWombat (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Query About A Possible New Page

A lot of people here on the wiki complain about the documenting of what they consider to be "minor" loons in what usually amounts to a stub. I think it is important to keep a record of these people and the very basics of what they're about, though. As a compromise, what would you think of an inclusive list of minor loons that all this could be collected under? I have an example of what I'm thinking of over in my sandbox, if you would care to take a look. --Castaigne (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that might be feasible. I suppose references are the way to shore it up. Put the sandbox out and see what happens, I guess - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Megabutthurt Yudhowsky

I saw that Reddit thread on the XKCD cartoon mentioning Roko's Basilisk (now deleted...) where Yudkhowsky accused you of sabotage/propaganda/blandly reporting LW's own beliefs in a way that doesn't fellate their egos. I haven't seen butthurt of that caliber in a long time. Did some jocks push him into a locker when he was twelve or something? Because he has one hell of a persecution complex. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What bit's now deleted? - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. And the mod telling him "Applauding moderator intervention to solve a problem that you helped create is hardly a noble action." - David Gerard (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Penny for your thoughts on Robots talk page.

It seems as important as the cryonics page. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Roko's basilisk

Ayo. Saw that you deleted my questions about the Roko's Basilisk. I'm a little tipsy, so I may have been out of line or something, and I'm not mad or anything, I just would like to know why you deleted it, out of curiosity? I thought I was furthering positive discussion of the topic. — Unsigned, by: 68.53.108.81 / talk / contribs

Deleted questions? I answered, I thought ... I don't see a deletion in the history ... and yes, I thought you were too :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Haha, thanks for the positivity. I guess I just suck at wikis or something. I refreshed the page to see if anyone responded, and my comments weren't there anymore, although they are now, and I went to the history and saw you as the latest one. Anyway I hope you have a nice day, and I hope I learn how to wiki someday. Feel free to delete all this if you like! — Unsigned, by: 68.53.108.81 / talk / contribs

[edit] Question for you

What exactly does Sysop revoke do? --Miekal 13:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty then, was just curious. --Miekal 13:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Morphing Bitcoin

Hi David,

It would seem that there's still a lot of editing going on in the Bitcoin article. A surface check didn't reveal any (too) obvious whitewashing of the electronic money ideas, though I thought it a bit too Wikipedia'ish that one edit description noted "removed bias" (isn't bias pretty much the point about RationalWiki?). I'm just calling these newest anonymous edits to your attention because I can see that you've reverted some earlier ones and so I thought you might be better able to judge the new version (I honestly know fuck-all about Bitcoins or other electronic (woo?) money) - sorry for bothering you if you already have checked it or if it's just not your thing. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was featured on /r/bitcoin, so hodlers have come by to increase our euphoria - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, well that might explain the hunch I got from reading the latest entry on Talk:Bitcoin which seems to attempt to discredit criticism of Bitcoin and similar electronic (woo?) money by constructing "two rabidly fanatical camps. Pro-Bitcoin and Anti-Bitcoin" (as if all criticism falls into these two caricatures) - that sounds far too reminiscent of creationists claiming that biology and evolution are also "religions". ScepticWombat (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell if 72.196.9.223's recent changes are just apologetics or if he's actually reflecting reality. Mind giving them a look?--TiaC (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The ASIC one is the only one that's actually useful - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That was the one that made me wonder if he was editing in good faith this time. Thanks! --TiaC (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that I have always been editing in good faith. I do not wish to increase the value of my Bitcoin holdings and would even go as far as saying Bitcoin is not something the average person should own (right now). I am interested in developing infrastructure around Bitcoin so that we may come to the point where the average person can safely own Bitcoins. It is a bit strange that you say only the ASIC edit is useful, hopefully I have justified the rationale of my other edits in the Talk page.--72.196.9.223 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Removing a "duplicate" tag

If you are going to remove a "duplicate" template from some article, you'd better also remove/archive the section in RationalWiki:Duplicate articles or comment there. FuzzyCatPotato apparently has taken over the duplicate/merge process and RW:DA. If you only remove the template, they most probably will quietly merge the articles some time later due to lack of opposition. (P.S. The wiki seems to be falling apart due to brain drain.)--ZooGuard (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Important question

When can we discuss goats craving minerals?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Still an important question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your goat is indeed very important to us! Please hold - David Gerard (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Also someone found an archive of that "debate" between Arthur Chu, Deanna Zandt, Fredrick Brennan, "Brooke", and David Auerbach. I've posted it at Talk:Gamergate. Also of note is how as soon as Zandt said something negative someone in the hashtag posted a screencap of her facebook page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Call me crazy

I am serious when I say an AfD would be best for the gamergate article. If nothing else, it might prod a few potential commenters out into the open, who have been ignoring it in the hope it will fade away into the shadows of obscurity. I don't know how the holiday season affects the number of eyeballs on RW happenings, but there is no time like the present. Flux gate gamma (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's one of our best and most popular articles, it's researched to the hilt, and it's about a serious attempt at abuse and lies in the media so it's missional. Rational story, bro - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, if it's popular, never mind then. The article looks to me like quidnunc ephemera. Who dissed who and when, and what others had to say about their own distorted view of the whole boring kerfuffle. Have a nice day, Flux gate gamma (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It could seriously do with a rewrite. But it's really remarkably popular. It appears we explain the shitfight less worse than almost anyone else - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. Flux gate gamma (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] BoN with a question

Sorry, but why exactly was the Talk page for the Gamergate article edit-locked? Personally I don't intend to participate in further discussion, since I'm leaving the entire pointless enterprise and discussion thereof to fizzle out on its own, but why lock the article and talk page for non-sysops? I'm assuming good-faith and that you want to avoid another link to child pornography by some chan-trawling twit, but your comment on the talk page on the "particular brand of insanity," or what have you, seems to imply, rightly or not, that people who are from the ethics camp of this teakettle-tempest won't be given sysop for the purposes of editing the article. I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but that's the impression your words on the talk page give. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Literally nothing you say makes sense or has a point, and the reason is right there on the page and in the edit history - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then let me reiterate and explain more comprehensively. My question is not why the article was edit-locked but "why the article was edit-locked." It was a moron posting a link to child pornography, that shouldn't necessitate shutting down discussion on the article by non-vetted members for the next three months. A more comprehensive explanation is warranted. And I notice you didn't respond to my observation regarding your comment about "particular brands of insanity." What constitutes a brand of insanity related to that page? Would I, for example, as someone who's neutral on the subject and who in fact agrees with both sides, be able to get sysop rank so I could edit it towards a more comprehensive and neutral handling of the whole shitstorm, or would my very neutrality be too much of a problem? If I was an articulate individual firmly in the ethics camp who wanted to insert more information regarding the actual advocacy that that camp has done, would I be able to do so? 174.98.201.96 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't be opping you, if that's what you're asking - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And would that be because of my lack of an account and relative newness to active editing on the site or because of my views on the subject of the article? 174.98.201.96 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gamergate

I want to waste electrons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bastards had it coming - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
THE POWER.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to RW, where everyone is a rouge adnim - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
what happened to THE POWER?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait here was some weird bug that the admin tools didn't load. How weird.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] wtf mate

Why is CensoredScribe here and why is he a sysop—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And why is he doing the same shit that got him banned from wp for—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He came here after he got banned and got sysopped. Then he made a bunch of pointless and off-mission edits and got de-sysopped. He then whined about it before leaving for a month. Then he returned and Nutty Roux (who seems to do very little but complain) made him a sysop again. He still does not seem aware what he's doing wrong.--TiaC (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Why keep letting him do it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
RW is entirely too easygoing. He certainly shouldn't be a sysop IMO, he was adding swathes of actual copyvios as well. But sysop is regarded as more of a right it's hard to lose here. EE's crappy edits are best reverted. He's a good example of why users kicked off Wikipedia who then come here don't seem to do very well - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious you're easygoing here but why give him the rights back again when he's doing so much damage?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest asking the person who sysopped him the last time.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, not even 2 days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I can take care of that myself it seems. This guy should not be trusted with such power, even if this website isn't as strict. I hope I did not overstep any bounds.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Bob is telling me I have overstepped my bounds and I need to discuss this at the chicken coop?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
To answer TiaC, please explain in more than a paragraph what I am doing wrong by educating you? To answer Ryulong I came here after foolishly ignoring repeated warnings not to add categories of Wikipedia.
Ryulong, I am not banned for categorization here like on Wikipedia. I would suggest joining Uncyclopedia and a popular fiction wiki, if you are attempting to return to Wikipedia as it demonstrate you have a sense of humor. I stopped doing categories for them when I realized it was way too hard for me to make two words funny. I too can call people two word slurs comparing them to disenfranchised minorities, but I prefer lengthy explanations as to why something sucks. Everyone here stops complaining at about 2 sentences, like Uncyclopedia's article for this place says; they also mention only the most recent out of a thousand examples of a users edits, without bothering to examine the uncontested others.
I'm curious what articles you are going to work on here Ryulong; I know your an oceanographer who patrols Wikipedia Japanese fiction pages, and that you've been there a while and racked up enough edits to be in the top 100 users; that's about all I learned about you. I assume you didn't care to read through my edits either, like for plastic. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Terribly sorry

I said that I'd only begin editing here if I could decipher this website. How can I make good on that promise?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken coop

That you are unwilling to even refer me to Wikipedia's equivalent of Internal Services to address my concerns is a greater concern. That I can cite multiple discrepancies in the edit history, such as being unable to sign in after adding brain transplant in fiction to Black Jack, could have slipped by. However, you white washed Ryulongs talk page of the derogatory comment, "don't compare me to that fucktard"; which prompted his retaliation by removing the size change category from super sentei, after having personally approved it months ago as part of an edit war truce. I would suggest telling everyone who to contact about corruption at the highest levels of Wikipedia and Rational Wiki unless your bad at your job as U.K. spokesperson. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Go away, you delusional fuckwit - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gamergate

Apparently I was wrong. Quite surprising, coming from the normally angelic Gamergate crowd. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ad populum

I choose you, Gerardochu! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ah, thanks

for the correction. I thought that phrase seemed familiar, but couldn't think of why. I had forgotten about the other Langue d'Oil dialects. I blame France and its disdain for the existence of dialects other than Parisian. Thanks again, and sorry about the miscommunication. :)

[edit] Ezekiel's wheel

Dear David -

I have tried a couple of times now to amend the Ezekiel's wheel page because it is currently illogical, makes unsubstantiated claims of irrefutable proof and the style of the writing is far too colloquial.

So far you have deleted or moves all of my attempts to update the page.

Your opening sentence in "angels versus ufos" reads as follows:

"The entire Book of Ezekiel is, of course, incontrovertible proof of alien visitation, and not the result of gibbering schizophrenia or more drugs[2] than were used to write the Book of Revelation and The Beatles back catalogue combined."

Moving forward, since we know of scholars and amateurs who have disputed that the book of Ezekiel is "proof" of alien contact this should mean that you can no longer claim this - opinion is clearly divided. Irrefutable proof is a scientific term that relies on evidence. A book that claims something is not in itself irrefutable proof, for example the tales of Odin and Zeus and so on were written down - this in itself is not proof that these gods exist.

You cite "gibbering schizophrenia" - where is your proof that mental illness was not a contributing factor? No-one has any medical records of Ezekiel. We don't even know for sure that he exists. You then cite drugs and the Beatles - stylistically this is a humorous sentence but the tone is well out of place if we are attempting to give the page an academic tone.

If we can tone down the unfounded opinions and stick to the known facts on this one I think the page would be much improved.

Best regards,

Paul.

[edit] Nominated for the Board

Someone has nominated you for the board of trustees without bothering to notify you. You may swing by the nomination page to accept or decline the nomination.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Attention required

Hello, David. We've been trying to send out an intercom message about the Trustees election coming up, but it seems that the intercom isn't working. You can find the conversation here. If you could please see what you can do, it'd be awesome. Thanks in advance. Noisemobile (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I knew Trent had explained it to me before, once upon a time, and was able to search some archives and find the solution. You may resume your martini consumption. Noisemobile (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hum, I can't see a notice myself ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] This is going to be fun

Have a look at User:Nullius. If necessary, use Twitter to ask for reinforcements.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about doubling the living person thing

Wasn't thinking. Also: how about a subcategory: "Long-dead corpses feigning life driven by a spirit of pure hatred"? Ikanreed (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as we have a reference! I need to find one about how it appears Louie Gohmert didn't just Photoshop his photo, but his actual face - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion discussion

You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you not have section links in your edit summaries?

Are you using some weird plugin? Always editing the whole page? Mobile app? I'm mostly just curious, it's not hard to track down, but I can't help but wonder. Ikanreed (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Usually I just hit "edit" on the whole thing. It's TOTALLY not chemtrails - David Gerard (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] About trolls and such...

Is there any problem at all with me conversing with them? Particularly, did I mess anything up when I did converse with a troll? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 13:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, knock yourself out :-) If it's too annoying to others they'll say so (oh boy will they say so) - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Can I have some examples of what I shouldn't do? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, I don't have any that spring to mind. Playing with the troll is mostly fine, I just collapsed that section 'cos that particular guy keeps coming back lots and lots with random reactionary links - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested phrases the next time RW's deficiencies become a topic on Twitter

"RW's quality is very uneven." "Because it's an open wiki, crap slips past the radar all the time."

Just saying "RW is a wiki, with all that comes with that" is not enough, because the vast majority of people don't really understand wikis and "all that comes with that" is not obvious to everybody. People treat RW as a solid entity, and they will attribute the content they see on the site to "RW" instead of to its actual authors. An insider may say "oh, that's just more of user X's crap" (user X being Proxima Centaury or someone else) and dismiss it, but for outsiders, it is just as much a part of the face of RW as the gold-brained articles.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth the effort, reading the objections. Some of the aggrieved wingnuts in question have tried to start a personal attack on Typhoon in response; we're not dealing with balanced people here - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Twitter is a public medium. There is always a silent audience. In such cases, one's arguments are not seen only by the people who bother to answer. ("You are arguing for the benefit of the spectators, not only for the unwinnable person directly in front of you" is a common motif among the savvier skeptics.) This particular result should give you pause, if idea that there might be genuine problems with the article doesn't. And every comparison with Conservapedia should be smacked down with "RW doesn't automatically block people for dissent".--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an interesting tension between "RW is a wiki, which means collaboration and unevenness and multiple voices trying to reach consensus, sometimes through prolonged debate and argument" and "The official Twitter feed of RW, to which (one? a couple? a handful? Who the hell knows?) person/people has the keys and can use it to speak as the voice of all those divergent dynamics... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a separate matter. As far as I know, it is supposed to be a publicity/PR channel, hence damage control is within its duties.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I was not looking for a debate, I was just pointing out an interesting, and probably unavoidable, tension. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a tricky one. But Popehat's contributors range from medium-far-right-libertarian to literally neoreactionary, and half the participants in that thread are Gamergaters (because Ken and Clark openly encourage them). And the actual claim they're defending is that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is not a conservative troll organisation and gives a shit about the freedom of anyone except rich white men and their wonderful offspring. I am pretty much unconvinced there's a public image save to be made here - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some embarrassingly poor statements in that article, though.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hence suggestion I just added to the talk page. But it's not the details they object to - they literally think it's a free-speech organisation and are literally saying that anyone saying otherwise hates the First Amendment - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bem

One more time... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology Gcolvin (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Adding NaturalNews to cover stories

Everything else is done. But I can't update Template:Coverstory cuz of a wee little mishap of not being sysop. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

added! - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Any personal opinion yet on Landmartian? --Castaigne (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Won't someone please think of da menz!! - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha! True that.
More seriously, some digging indicates that he's either a bud of Tisane or Tisane himself. --Castaigne (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Collins

There was a discussion around that section in the talk page. Clearly Collins annoys Coyne but that seems insufficient to support the claim that biologists on the whole are exasperated. It did say "some biologists" but another editor objected to that so i took the sentence out.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support