User talk:Lumenos/Archive3

Cutting sections to make them easier to edit
Special:Contributions/89.132.239.149 doesn't like when I do this. Anyone else have an opinion? ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's tiresome. What we do to make adding to long sections easier is add subsections, usually called things like "handy edit button". Making a new top-level header to continue a recent conversation really mucks up the flow.  00:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. But sometimes it appears to be a completely new topic. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But the one you did above wasn't a "new topic", it was replying to/discussing the exact topic of the thread you chopped it off of. Our convention here is simple: to make a really long thread/topic easier to edit, we add sub-headers so the whole topic remains under one == level header.  Capiche?  02:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eeeaaarruum perhaps a different subtopic, Sir? You've got it now though. That is basically what you might call a sympathetic debate crap. Enforcing topically according to your perception or preference. If we were both to agree on the topics, that would be one requirement of a multiview debate map. ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page not your property
..don't remove stuff from it, unless to archive. Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"the rule for archives is DO NOT EDIT. Just to be clear. 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)"
 * You have to edit it to put things in it, obviously. I put something in there after I already had things in it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They can be edited for archiving purposes or we have a bot that can do your archiving for you. 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Not necessarily.  00:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Human changing a section again
I wrote that Human did this before to my edit on the CS talk page. Π asked for a diff. Here is a similar example (although this time s/he didn't need to set the indentation to a seemingly "arbitrary" location). ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that this talk page is not my property. Here you will observe Human altering my edit. I will attempt to undo this. I didn't want it that way because I may want to archive the section without archiving the section I created. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Further evidence that this talk page is not my property." Exactly. This talk page is not your property. What's so difficult about that for you to understand? P-Foster (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well do you have some guide for those who wish to know how their talk page is likely to be altered by administrators here? ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you format it like a dummy, Human will come and fix it. What exactly are you trying to do here? P-Foster (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And Human will fix it only because that's something Human just does. There's no stopping his fixes, unless you want him to yell at you the next time he's drunk for not letting him help you fix something. 01:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I only take Human's "insults" seriously if I can find some sort of constructive criticism in it. If he has community support that is another matter. But I have seen a lot of evidence that he does not. Comments by SusanG's quote on this page (currently), Gooniepunk's comment here, and the forum on the racist linking, are examples. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I not supposed to revert Human's edits? Nobody has changed it back yet. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

no. Unless he did something in bad faith, which is unlikely to be the case. what are you trying to do here, exactly? P-Foster (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One may act in "good faith" but make a mistake. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment here doesn't seem to be indented to the proper level. I suppose you wouldn't want me to indent it. Why didn't you indent it? ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to organize stuff. Could you ask a more specific question? ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is nobody understands your organisation. We have our own convention that everyone has learnt and we all use it because it is easier than learning a new one to suit one editor. 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * EC. Because I didn't feel like it. As for being more specific, how does leaving so much word diarrhea all over the place make anything more organized? P-Foster (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can I put a link to Lumeniki where I replied to you? ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could, but it's stupid and boring and would do nothing to answer my question about how you think you're bringing anything to THIS party by trolling us. P-Foster (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I could what? I put this on my user page. Call it "trolling" if you wish. I think many may disagree with you there. I suspect you have done this sort of thing elsewhere on this wiki, and made some "enemies" or at least raised invisible eyebrows. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved that "reply" to this subpage. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather "talk" to Π, if this can be allowed here. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Boring
This Lumenos stuff is incredibly boring and is going nowhere. Acei9 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the McWicked one. Anybody care to help me out over here instead of all this bickering? This upcoming article is turning out to be more work than I bargained for. 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See ya there! 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop
I don't know what it is you are trying to achieve but you are clogging RC for what seems like a completely purposeless reason. Please stop, think, and attempt to do.....whatever it is you are trying to do in a more straight forward manner. Thanks. Acei9 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you or P-Forester are talking about unless you are specific. I don't think I'm doing anything in a secret manner. I don't know what you mean. To reply to you I must put a thing in Recent Changes. (I guess there is some way to prevent this, but then I might be accused of hiding the evidence or something.) ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This, smart ass. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this "secret manner" you are speaking about refers to all I know is that you have been clogging up RC for days with a number of different sub-pages and splintered conversations that appear to be going nowhere and are completely purposeless. I submit to you that what ever you are wanting to do would have either been done by now or not at all so just, you know, quit it. Acei9 04:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add that this whole fucking edit war or whatever between Lumenos, Human, P-Foster et al has to stop. It's just getting petty. 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this comment I will probably quote things and post to Lumeniki, rather than at RationalWiki. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks. Acei9 05:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pibot
Pibot sounds like a good idea, just to get people off my back. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Did you read my comment above in the edit break 1 section? 03:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One consequence of this is that I don't know when things are going to get sucked into the archive, so I am giving the stuff at the top the highest priority. ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the help/instruction page that is now linked from your talk page. You can set how many days you want dead threads to languish. If I could figure it out, you can too.  09:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the time setting. I wonder if editing something with no section resets the time for the entire page. If so, I suppose I can limit your time to an hour (to reply in a section or change the time setting) before I have anything archived with Pibot. (forgot to sign this earlier ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Pibot reads the actual timestamps left by signatures. 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where will it put something that is not in a section? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not archive any content above the first == header ==. Everything else by definition is in a section. Also, it will not archive any section marked with == header (sticky) ==  00:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sir! =) Imma gonna copy this to the Pibot page unless someone can stop me. You deserve credit but I suppose I will just have to receive the little slot in the toplist edit history. Ahhaha! ~ Lunemos (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Might want double check for accuracy by asking on pibot's talk page first. And did we really forget to document adding the "sticky" feature?  Oh well.  I hope the bot serves you well.  01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just checked and all that is there already, it's just not obviously specific about not archiving things before the first section header. 01:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Even totally pointless comments on talk pages should be signed. 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What if they "hijack" our user page (also), place "lies" (are they lies if no one believes them?) about us, then say, "Stop arguing!", "Please don't quote anything we write." "Stop spamming Recent Changes!" "Just relax and enjoy your phreedom, Bro. Be coooo dawg. What's with all the hat'n? If you don't stop you'll be all alone. Not even Lumeniod bothers with TOW." ~ The Undecider (an anarcho-librarian) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is wrong with you? ÑR /Señor Admin/Talk 22:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you be a better judge of that than me, Sir? ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 08:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the hell you are doing with your nested talk pages...
...but I am glad to see you joining in, editing articles and chatting on talk pages. 03:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Textifying of conversations means they persist when otherwise they would fade fast as memory. When they are all ulgo-bickerings which can't be properly reorganized, deadly ikilumen could result in some innocent pedestrian being gish gallopped. So then goblins come to my pristine nest and the first thing they do way with is essential lumenati tradition. What do name lumeniki that is not wikiforum for lumenism? Can noone answer? ~ Lumenos 06:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lumenos is learning how to be a RatWikian, at last. 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * <sniff What is that smells like pu... oh hi Susan! Didn't see you come in. I guess I'm finding all the knobs and buttons on this wikilumenator here. ~ Lumenos 07:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lumenos, don't bury your talk page eight pages deep. If you don't FIX I will.  07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Be nice to Susan
She is the mother of all. She is my personal Saviour. If you won't leave her alone, you'll have to deal with me. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this Susan's wiggy? Just wondering. ~ Lumenos 07:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, Susan has already told you everything you need to hear in your whole life. Now go away. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see. You believe she makes this request for my benefit? Please explain, if possible. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 00:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You would not understand. I will protect Susan with the cost of my life if needed. Well, not really, but I'll let her think so. But you, get lost and stop talking to me. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You say sweet nothing for her benefit? If you want I no more talk to you. Here I ask the court, I should act on my understanding or yours? ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
You can't redirect a page to a subsection of that page. Also you have created a double redirect, my other bot will break you page unless you fix it yourself. 07:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was typo. I fixed it. ~ Lumenos 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)