If home is where the heart is, then I live in my upper chest!!!

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

LQT archive from back when that sort of thing was hip.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>

[edit] Bot account (sticky)

NoiseBot, for editing Edit Filters and not clogging up RC. NoiseBot (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That red button- what does it do? Should I press it? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Weird attention whoreDolan.png 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It blocks that account. Only press it if that bot goes awry or, in this case, if an edit filter goes haywire as a means of drawing my attention to an edit filter problem. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Tedious Crackpot Spam"

What does that mean when you use it to remove stuff? It's pretty vague.--ReptoidKiller (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In the context in which it was used against you, it means "I'm a disgrace to this Wiki because I'd rather not try to debate you." Thus, it's vague because it's used in a manner which is not constructive to this Wiki's stated mission. As a result, I went ahead and undid much of what had been done to your edits, especially since I sought to have the debate you wanted. I apologize on behalf of the Wiki for the abuses that were lobbed at you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"Tedious Crackpot Spam" would be a legitimate point to be made about gish gallops and purely copy-pasted arguments. While I think you're right to replace his edits, I would warn ReptoidKiller that it does take effort to research these theories and so it would be impolite to post too many at once. We will answer questions, but we ask that you do not abuse this. --TiaC (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (Edited)
I would edit that just a little and say that you should be careful not to start numerous arguments on numerous topics at once. While people like me are more than tolerant of such things, there is always the risk of ruffling feathers. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You're quite right, fixed. It bears mentioning that people will be more willing to answer questions if you present your questions as an honest desire to learn. I think your odd formatting may have hurt this and caused editors to assume that you were merely copy-pasting arguments you weren't invested in. --TiaC (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit]  :(

--ZooGuard (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My life as it stands is so busy that I no longer have time to seriously contribute here for the foreseeable future. Combine that with complete burn out after almost 7 years here, and you effectively get a retired editor, which is what I now am. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It's still sad to see the old guard go. I'm not very happy with the quality of the replacements. People like you will be missed. --ZooGuard (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Without hyperbole; what I've seen on RW this year makes me fear for the site's future and is of a kind with what has caused me to no longer wish to call myself a "skeptic". I imagine Goonie will be available for consultation here if the need arises. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's all because of bad seeds like me. I'm a horrible influence. - Grant (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep. We don't need adults who care whether content is unattractive to anyone but people who already agree with the editorializing and bias individual editors put in articles. This place has become amateur hour. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Nutty, this month you made 105 edits. 83 were talk, 22 were anything else. Your negative attitude towards current editors appears hypocritical. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
And? My negative attitude has no merit? What's hypocritical about it? What does any of that have to do with our current crop of new editors generally being an embarrassment? I'm capable of justifying myself and admitting I'm wrong. Are you? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Nutty, you consistently state that current editors fail to contribute to RationalWiki positively and that this is bad. Editting talk pages does very little to contribute to RationalWiki, positively or negatively. Thus, your edits appear to do very little to contribute to RationalWiki, which is what you state is bad in others.
I am not attempting to prove that your points about current editors are incorrect, or that you are a bad editor, or that I am somehow a superior editor. I am attempting to prove that your edits do not live up to your goals. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I gather you don't even understand what my goals are. But I see what you did there openly stating you've got nothing substantive to say on my point, and not-so-obliquely calling me a hypocrite a second time when you don't know what you're talking about. Did nobody teach you how to reason? Can any of you people conduct a discussion on the merits? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we having fun yet? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, Human, thanks for asking.
First, Nutty, if I have failed to show your hypocrisy, then it is only from lack of understanding of your complaint. Please, restate it.
Second, Nutty, if you would like to objectively prove that current editors are worse than editors from yesteryear, please do so. Until you present proof to affirm that statement, I cannot "debate on the merits" of your point.
Third, Nutty, do you really have to use aggressive questions that imply that the site sucks in every post? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support