User talk:Armondikov/archive6

Archive 6 In which the RationalWiki Foundation is born, an idiot lives up to its name, and we look at some fancy coloured sidebars.

Email
Did you get my e-mail? tmtoulouse 20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry I haven't replied yet. I kind of put it on the backburner while I did a few other things today. 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates and colors and headers and stuff
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Template%3ASex&diff=619751&oldid=619315

How many others of these did you, um, change to your personal preference of colors and "part of the series on" shit? 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for breaking your wiki oh high lord of everything.[[image:Bow.gif]] 08:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick suggestion - shouldn't we at least add a "view" link in small text at the bottom of these? Or the even better "v - e - t" triplet (view - edit - talk)?  16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Never occurred to me that those were necessary on templates. Providing they're catalogued and categorised properly, there shouldn't be a need to. 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very useful to do it. Cats are great, but don't address the desire to fix something with only one click. As things are, one has to 1 click "edit 0", 2 copy the template name 3 edit the location bar ... 5 profit!  16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a sec. I'll stick an example on the ol' pussbox to see. 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not to a direct URL link as they don't look as good, but I can't figure out how to link directly to the &action=edit version any other way. Without that, the scheme is, at best, pretty pointless. 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Check my last edit to template:religion. Also the edit comment - this ought to be a template itself.  17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be v-t-e rather than view - talk - edit, I think it needs to be less intrusive, say aligned to the right. Alternatively, we need something like Template Control: View - Talk - Edit. I previewed it but didn't like it too much. Just anything to make it less cryptic. Agreed on making that a separate template to transclude into it. 14:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this, thank you very much! 02:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we need to recurse vtw into the vte template. 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FFS, you should create a template for all these navthingies, so that a) they look somewhat unified (yeah, I know, we don't like consistency at this here rational wiki), b) when someone inevitably screws up, you don't have to hunt down every copypasta of that screwup, you can just fix the code in one place. -- Nx  / talk 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello to you too, stranger. 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal icon for alternative medicine?
I'd like to make AltMednav into one of the right-side navigation columns that seem to be "hep" with the "kids" these days - for consistency with the others, could you please make something suitable? What icon would it have, anyway? ( /me goes to look around) - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably not worth touching that template and making a new sidebar one instead. No idea about icons, however. 22:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably - less Flag Dayish. The icon, hm. What? - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh fine, I'm childish but you still didn't answer my points and that's still pathetic
--Idiot number 59 (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't answering it because I had little intention of answering it right now as I'm doing other things that interest me much more. I'm merely commenting that if you want to start a rational discussion and have a serious point, then why jump straight in on the offensive and intentionally annoy anyone? No one takes you seriously when you start like that. You seem stuck on a strange mentality that says "an RW article is the opinion of every user on the site... except me" and bring it up on the talk page as if it's an personal issue with an editor. This is not only a misrepresentation about how a wiki works, with the "author" of an article basically being an emergent entity formed of all contributors, but a strikingly counter-productive and irrational way to start a discussion as you'll find that you're essentially trying to insult and complain to thin air. Next time, try the following process;
 * I wasn't answering it because I had little intention of answering it right now as I'm doing other things that interest me much more. I'm merely commenting that if you want to start a rational discussion and have a serious point, then why jump straight in on the offensive and intentionally annoy anyone? No one takes you seriously when you start like that. You seem stuck on a strange mentality that says "an RW article is the opinion of every user on the site... except me" and bring it up on the talk page as if it's an personal issue with an editor. This is not only a misrepresentation about how a wiki works, with the "author" of an article basically being an emergent entity formed of all contributors, but a strikingly counter-productive and irrational way to start a discussion as you'll find that you're essentially trying to insult and complain to thin air. Next time, try the following process;


 * 1) Identify your grievances with the content.
 * 2) Edit the content to address this problem, provide references where necessary.
 * 3) Mention your reasoning briefly in an edit summary.
 * 4) Add a talk page section and thoroughly explain your change and your reasoning.
 * Try this next time and people may take you seriously. Spotting something you disagree with in an article and running to the talk page, crying like a baby and screaming "pathetic" and "irrational" or whatever the truly stupid do, is not going to help and is only going to draw out the most abrasive qualities in people - and they'll treat you as if this is your intention. 09:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will certainly write a nasty hateful poem for Mr Aschflafly... difficult name.
 * Well that's funny. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you have trouble with the words "thoroughly" and "explain". Do I need to drop it to monosyllabic - that means "short" - words? But also if you were serious, you wouldn't go off on a tangent like this and attack an editor rather than staying at the original location. What is funny about the above? Do I need to assume you're trying to call me out as a hypocrite? I'd like to see you back that up with substantial evidence. Now, I've spent far too much time and effort trying to be reasonable and explaining a thought process out to you for very little in return; so if your next edit to this talk page isn't what I'd consider constructive, this will be my last word on the subject, I'll maybe get around to the Expelled article later but since it's not my favoured area and your points seemed somewhat "so what?" I have little motivation to and no obligation to. 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You answered me just to get your edit rates higher and be more übermensch than human. Cos honestly, I didn't expect that you're actually going to answer my "that's funny", because that was the ordinary idiot # 59, not the serious idiot # 59. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit to atheism
That is all. 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's one way of dealing with what I'd like to call "content creep", whereby an article gets filled with repeated sentences that all start with "furthermore" and "additionally" and "another point is" or when bullet pointed lists go awry. I cleared out a lot of the list like stuff a while ago but I think that section just slowly bloated without me noticing, 15:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another pat on the back
For remaining one of the most productive editors here, and for being one of my personal favorite editors, I hereby give you yet another pat on the back. 06:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And here I was thinking you had to be a giant douche to get noticed here! 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brain
It's local, I think. Try changing browsers or clearing your cache. 17:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. It looks really, really odd and one hell of a weird glitch... 17:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, there it is. In the very bottom right of the page. What in the fuck?!?! 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Good job it was just local. 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

e-mails
Hopefully your getting my e-mails, but want to emphasize the importance of getting the transfer contract done before Tuesday. If you could please get back to me on whether the digital signatures work and feed back on the draft contract. tmtoulouse 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble getting it to work but I'm blaming my netbook on that. I might give it another shot when I get access to a real computer in an hour or two. 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I think the issue is actually the fact that Hotmail doesn't like people who don't use Internet Explorer. 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that digital signatures wont work with reader. I have sent a note about a possible alternative. tmtoulouse 03:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you created
Template:Sciencenav. But haven't actually used it in any of the science articles. Is there a bot for that?-- Centimeter INCHES  20:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there won't be a bot for that. It'll just be case of adding it in manually. 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds horribly tedious.-- Centimeter INCHES  12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that bad. Bots can malfunction or place them badly, messing up other templates and images. It's better to do it manually overall and use good judgment of whether the article needs the template or not. 12:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly determines whether a science-related article should have the science template?
 * Whether people think it should. Slap it on an article if you feel it's appropriate, if you're wrong others will doubtless remove it - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Things in the science category, things to do with science. Generally it's not so much of an issue of content but these side bar things are long and look out of place on short stubs or perhaps don't work well if there are too many images etc. etc. 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reddit loves you
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/d1frq/a_rationalwiki_wtf_the_completely_rational_demand/ - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knocked that out in about 10 seconds. If people are complaining, then they can edit the article, which someone with sense has done. 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget
RationalWiki:RationalWiki Foundation/2010 Q4 budget. Thoughts? tmtoulouse 00:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

by laws
Can you do a once over RationalWiki:RationalWiki Foundation/By laws before I pull it out for signatures? tmtoulouse 03:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)