User talk:Shtrominer

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Shtrominer!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Welcome to the red wiki! Enjoy your stay. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work with the categories. If you go to "preferences" and then "gadgets" you can select to use HotCat, which speeds the process up immensely. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful tip. -Shtrominer 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Typos

Nice one on fixing up the typos and spelling errors. Here, have a goat on me. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but now how do I get it to stop gnawing on my sleeve? -Shtrominer 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't, it's just one of the downsides. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if I stare at it long enough... Shtrominer 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sysopery

In light of your valiant efforts here, I have made you a sysop. Here's your big book of how to. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shtrominer 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big pat on the back

Good job with your copy-edits, man! Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 07:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shtrominer (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
See what I did at Huey P. Newton and Paul Ryan, makes it so they're sorted in any cats that get added. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Bad person for whatever I reverted at Nuremberg Files. Naughty naughty. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to putting the "interesting fact" back in some form? Maybe tone down the snark? It's sourced and gives an indication of just how batpoo the guy is. Shtrominer (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's at really embarrassing cons, I think that's enough. I guess I wouldn't object to a "see also" pointing to that section, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I understand not wanting to overdo it. A "see also" link seems like a good solution. Shtrominer (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Another big ol' pat on the back.....

Thanks again for doing an outstanding job with the copyediting around here. Cheers, dude! Punky Your mental puke relief 06:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Your catting binge

Whilst nice could you consider two things. Stuff in the Fun namespace really doesn't need a cat, also could you avoid broad categories like people. We have discussed this at length and it was agreed the narrower the better. - π 03:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Will remember this in the future. Some stuff is hard to place, so I tried to put it in a nice, safe broad category rather than shoot for something narrower and miss. Shtrominer (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to let you know...

This edit = win. 76.4.240.95 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but I can't really explain my reasons properly in the limited space of the edit summary

Right, I apologize for rude editing behaviour.

The reason I kept removing that bit is because I believe everyone should read that article by Leigh Alexander and judge for themselves instead of one of us telling them what we thought it was. Opinions do differ on what exactly offends about this. For example, this is my take on it: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk%3AWhat_is_going_on_in_the_blogosphere%3F&diff=1367205&oldid=1367200 I do think Alexander has a good point, but lays it out quite poorly. I think we should let readers just see it for themselves and make up their own minds. The sentence I kept removing is not needed to make the case that there was undue harassment of this particular gaming journalists as someone who is opposed to Gamergate. Nullahnung (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written RationalWiki articles will of course try to present opposing arguments/views in the interest of context and exercise a restrained use of snark. But this isn't Wikipedia. We're not bound by NPOV to "show both sides" or "let the readers decide." There's no need to cater to "teach the controversy" types here.
The fact is that Alexander wrote about sexism in the gaming community and was then the target of a co-ordinated campaign of misogynistic harassment. Removing that context isn't doing justice to the bigger picture, because it makes it seem as if Alexander was targeted randomly or "for the lulz."
The worst things Alexander called Gamergater types in her piece were "obtuse shitslingers" and "childish internet-arguers." It's not unusual for opinion pieces to contain snark. And, of course, the Gamergaters only proved her right by responding to her piece with obtuse muck-raking and childish internet-arguing. And suggesting that she was somehow out of line for calling a small digging tool by its accepted name is employing the same kind of tone argument which anti-feminists frequently accuse feminists of using.
I did shave a bit of snarkiness off the description of Alexander's article, though. I also added more information on how she's being deliberately targeted and the types of harassment she's received. I remembered reading an article about it, but it took me a while to find it again.-Shtrominer (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It is very true that Gamergaters who started harassing her only ended up proving her description of... of who? Of the core male gaming demographic? See, that's the problem. She was using an ill-defined group broadly labeled "gamer" and painting it with a broad, negative brush while making a good point about sexism in the gaming industry. There is no consideration of the fact that the group is made up of unique individuals who are being unfairly othered, there is no calling out to the group to self-reflect and promote civil behaviour (which as a gaming journalist would be the pro-consumer thing to do). This is my opinion of the article, I'm sure the person who wrote it is wonderful and has only the best of intentions and does not by any stretch of the imagination deserve the harassment alotted, but there are faults in the article and I'm not going to have you sit there and tell me that there are not.
Btw, the snark that you removed, I think that makes it okay with me now. I can accept the way you put it now. Nullahnung (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Apparently some idiots were dumb enough to give me sysop again. Naturally, I sought to self-correct this.--Madman (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Pretty sure you could've done that yourself if that was your end game. -Shtrominer (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Article deletion

Why did you delete the breastfeeding article without at least giving me a chance to improve it? It was my first posting and I was really trying to do a good job. Your comment that it sounded like a one-sided bashing of formula feeders is helpful because I was actually trying to use snark to defend formula. Can I try again? Is there anything else I can do to improve the post? Thanks! LitteringAnd 22:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to nuke your article. I admit that I may have acted rashly. We definitely appreciate snark on this wiki. But I believe snark is a thing best used sparingly. Sometimes satire is so convincing that you can't tell a parody of a viewpoint from an actual argument in favour of the same viewpoint.
I've restored your article in your userspace. I don't think it's ready for mainspace in its current form, but you can work on it there. Personally, I'd do away with the "pros" and "cons" lists, as I think they're too subjective, and seem more like they're trying to make a point than provide information. I'd still discuss the benefits and drawbacks of breastfeeding, but I'd aim for a more serious presentation, covering the benefits that scientific research has confirmed (immunological boost) and the claimed benefits that scientific research has debunked (increased IQ). I'd try to avoid subjective stuff like "breastfeeding is cheaper," "breast milk smells nicer than formula," etc., or at least explicitly frame these as opinions/arguments put forward by specific people.
I'd also discuss the discrimination and judgment faced by both bottle-feeding and breast-feeding parents in greater detail. I'd discuss the instances in which nursing mothers being asked to leave restaurants, stores, etc., and how this contributes to the stigmatization of breast-feeding. I'd discuss the way formula companies have employed questionable marketing tactics, especially in the developing world. But I'd also discussing the way formula-feeding parents are subject to judgment and shaming. I'd discuss the ways in which the "baby-friendly" initiatives designed to encourage breast-feeding are doing a disservice to new mothers. The reports of lactation consultants entering hospital rooms uninvited and new parents literally having to beg hospital staff to give them formula or prepare a bottle. I'd discuss the social pressure to breastfeed in Western society and where this intersects with the attachment parenting/natural parenting movement.
I'd also cite everything.
There's definitely room for snark, but I think a more serious, concrete approach would ultimately result in a stronger article. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support