User talk:Jackiespeel

You seem rather fun. First two edits are magnanimously thought-provoking. -- 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Welcome the not-an-encyclopedia all about refuting silly stuff! Totnesmartin (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A new found lease on life
You have made some pretty solid contribs, been around awhile, so enjoy some new powers. Perhaps though, a small favour, you could put something on your user page so it is no longer a red link? Thanks! Aceof Spades 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you no longer have a red link to your user page. I like that a lot. I've read here and there that you need to watch out for that McWicked character, but I'll say no more... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * McWicked is a fine fellow......Aceof Spades 12:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Voynich and the Chateau
There's not much in either of those pages, and some of us were thinking of deleting them, but we want to give you a chance to maybe flesh them out and somehow work them into the rest of the wiki first. Got any ideas on that? Researcher (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to put the info needed into those pages? Most of us have no idea what you are talking about, and so aren't really qualified to get the info into the pages and to link them to other pages on the site. Researcher (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lame advice
You have created a number of articles recently, many or all of which are undergoing a hard gauntlet of criticism. May I humbly suggest that you write your next one in a sandbox (like User:Jackiespeel/sandbox ) and when it is "ready", ask the mob at the saloon bar, or a trusted editor, where it should go? Just trying to help you keep your contributions alive. 04:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I try to summarise for you? We are interested in rational vs irrational thinking. We are not a general encyclopaedia and will never be. We do not collect obscure, but interesting facts. If you want to do that that is what the fun name space is for. Pseudohistory, were people pervert normal critical analysis techniques to re-write history the way they would like it to be is more what we are about. 03:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of the above might I also suggest that you review the article RationalWiki which states our purposes. Pseudohistory is not explicitly included but it's certainly an acceptable topic. But please do not create an article and say "some people have strange ideas about this - please look it up". If pseudoscience or pseudohistory is involved then please put this information in the article along with links to where this can be found along with an explanation of why it is wrong.  If you do not know how to create wiki links there is information in the help screens or you can just ask somebody.--BobIt's cold! 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to be honest, there are people somewhere having weird ideas about all sorts of stuff. Every other disaster or unsolved crime seems to have its own bizarre explanation/conspiracy theory trailing after it nowadays, although most never make it out of the forums. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. There needs to be some level of significance to the idea. An idea only held by a handful of people wouldn't be significant.--BobIt's cold! 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you please learn to sign with four tildes?
I'm getting sick of seeing your comments signed with nothing but a timestamp. Please learn. 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Library computer keys stick.

Quite bluntly - of all the wikis I have contributed to RW seems to be the most unfriendly. If there are articles on the Daily Mail etc and gibing on many articles (eg the last line of Holy Blood, Holy Grail), why not have articles on Lord Lucan etc?
 * The hardcore users are unfortunately some of the most unfriendly. Make up for it by pissing them off. Enjoy yourself. Fuck them. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neveruse is right. And the other answer is because nobody but you gives a shit and it's inconsistent with our mission. Where we do indulge off-mission stuff it's because we like the editor or they're bullies we can't get rid of like Human. Hope that helps. And I have to agree with Human that it's irritating to see unsigned posts and have to go through the diffs to see who wrote what. There's a button for it down there next to "Sign your username." Right next to the button you have to push to save your edits. In fact, I'll make it even easier for you and move the "Sign your username" button right below the "Save page" button just for you! 15:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to see Ceiling Cat. Nutty you promised me handy tildes but their still too far from the save page. I wont say your a cunt but may I please think it? --filthy hippy scum, NOT Jackie's peel
 * A Lord Lucan article could be on-mission, if for example conspiracy theorists were to claim that he was murdered by the Illumunati. It depends really on the direct you're taking. An article that does nothing but note that Lucan vanished is probably not of interest, since you may as well be writing about the sock I lost last week. However, refuting pseudo-scientific or conspiracyesque claims to his vanishing would be a good idea. Your original Paranormal disappearances article had a few problems:


 * It didn't tell us much about these people/events and the theories surrounding them.
 * Your article appears innaccurate. Why is the vanishing of the princes considered to be of paranormal in nature? The theories I'm aware of tend to revolve around good old-fashioned politics and power games.
 * This appears to be a list of articles that was written prior to actually writing the articles: A table of contents with no book. If you'd written or sourced articles that could be included then this page could serve as a nice starting point for navigating through the articles. That is perhaps a decent idea, and maybe what you had intended.
 * The concept is interesting, but the formatting was unpleasant. You do have a good idea there, but I'd suggest you plan a longer article in which you explain and then rebut (where possible) paranormal claims that have been made. Could I suggest you try this in a sandbox page, and then transfer the finished article over once it's been done. People are less likely to savage an article that shows promise, as opposed to drive-by stubs. -- 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Somebody else' changed the title - my intent was different (and to give possible (humorous) reasons. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realise that. Apologies for any misunderstandings there. -- 10:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am getting rather annoyed with proceedings and attitudes.


 * 1) Why should I bother# starting off or developing what are intended to be serious articles? I am not against articles being retitled etc - or discussions as to which side of the fuzzy edge of RW acceptance an article is. But Arthur and Glastonbury are promptly turned into 'fun articles' without any discussion - the former turned into an Uncyclopedia article; the article on 'Persons notable for having disappeared' was turned into Paranormal disappearances.

While I accept that Rationalwiki uses many variants of humour, there seems a rather high level of swearwords usage - and some people are likely to object to the use of the Hitler images.


 * The problem is that most of the article subjects you choose don't really relate to our missions, or only very tenuously. Mainspace articles should be related to these missions, or to some of the larger themes which connect to them (modern politics, society, religion, the media, etc).  It's hard to see how an article on Glastonbury would fit into this, & being linked into "New Agery" isn't really justification enough in itself.  Plus the articles you create don't contain enough to make it clear what they're there for.  You seem to just be putting a couple of thoughts down on the page, then writing on the talk page what you think other people should do with it.  See the suggestions in the section above, about developing your articles in user or essay space.  Or you could carry on working on them in funspace, & they might be moved to mainspace later if they seem to fit into it in some way.   18:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider Potentiating mutation, NSWF, Book of Ruth and many others which describe various types of non-rationality; there is an Arthur industry and Lord Lucan serves as a pseudo-urban legend.

If RW were more serious (which is not the same as having a humour bypass), appeared to look less like Uncyclopedia, and other contributors were more willing to play 'pass the parcel' with articles, without using swearwords, I would be more willing to develop articles. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jackiespeel, doing the same thing (writing stubs that show no reason why they should be RW articles and complaining when other people don't finish writing them for you) and expecting different results isn't really helping anyone. Numerous times above, people have suggested methods for developing a topic to the point where it might survive (or finding out if the mob thinks it will), but you are just ignoring them and calling us "unfriendly".  I don't know what else to say...  21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for channelling Proxima C and Ed Poor simultaneously? Her obliviousness + his penchant for shite stubs = quite the ballache. Getting prissy about all the fucking swearwords is a nice touch, too. --Robledo (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why the articles I mention above conform to RW standards. Too many of the articles seem to be 'ya boo rubbish view' about belief-systems (even if weird/stupid/several underground stations beyond Barking).

Why is complaining about the level of swearwords is being prissy? Even Uncyclopedia does not have as many - and other people must find them a right turn off.


 * I looked at the two blue links above, both made sense to me. Articles on evolution support our countering of, say, YEC and IDiots.  The Bible page likewise, although may be a bit adrift.  The red link, I'm not sure what you mean.  Anyway, you are now arguing along the lines of what WP calls "other stuff exists".  The Arthur article as "started" wasn't even complete sentences - that sort of thing is gonna get ripped out really fast.  Really, best to work in a userspace subpage until the article makes sense.  A lot of people here don't like to see poor quality stubs saved as new articles because they are proud of the good stuff we have.  02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If an article is immediately turned into a 'fun' article/deleted I do not have the time to develop it - or develop further articles elsewhere.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Jackiespeel / talk / contribs
 * That's why people are suggesting incubating them in your user space. I don't know why you don't seem to have read that suggestion yet.  Do you know what we mean by it, or what we mean by a "sandbox"?   21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be of assistance....
Perhaps create a sandbox to develop your artricles in, say here then post it with a "what do you think?" on the talk page. As to the swearwords - wrong fucking site, guy. Hope this has been enlightening. Acei9 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the best approach. People generally avoid editing the userspace of other users, so you're safe to slowly develop an article before putting it in to its final home. Jackie, I looked at some of the articles you mentioned (Glastonbury as an example), and saw a lot of stubs with reasonably long periods of time before people came in and started poking around. If I see an article posted, and it's been 30 minutes or so since the last edit, I'll assume that the author has finished. I suspect many others would come to the same conclusion, and that's why stubs will get developed or nuked. A stub is fine if there's a good reason for it to remain a stub. You might write a stub in support of a larger article, or if focussing on the aspects of the subject matter that are on-mission. However, there's no value in creating a stub just for the sake of having an article on something, and that's what Glastonbury appeared to be. Glastonbury (and the Arthur mythology) is a rich source of woo, and certainly on-topic. -- 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect,
I'm inclined to say that we ought to be a little more sensitive to people who take a strong stand on their contributions being funspaced or usurped. While I think usurp isn't all that accurate, I'm sure that's how it felt to Jackiespeel. Let's userify these articles and let Jackiespeel be the one to develop the ideas he things make sense for an RW article. I thought the disappearances article was too off mission to keep, but that doesn't mean JS doesn't deserve a chance to sort it out. Vote Userify '10. 01:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, better than moving to fun: or deletion. Moving the early work to the user space and letting him know it was done gives him space to work up a decent article, or, at least a decent "superstub".  02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I think he has some interesting topics, but they could benefit from expansion before being let loose in to mainspace.-- 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have decided that Rationalwiki does not serve my purposes this discussion is now academic: participants on other wikis are far more friendly/willing to cooperate on developing articles etc. I find the language used offensive - and the automatic assumption that I am a 'he.'

There does not seem to be any rationale behind which articles are allowed and which deleted - thus sleep and hamsters are allowed, but King Arthur, about which there is much discussion/irrationality is sent to funspace.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Jackiespeel / talk / contribs
 * Good stuff. I'm sure you'll be an asset to these friendly wikis. Don't let me keep you. -- 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, I almost typed "him/her" or "it" but forgot to. Apologies, I wasn't assuming you were male, just lazy typing.  00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been no explanation for the allowance of swearwords scattered across the wiki, the gibing at eg Founding Fathers, and why eg hamsters are allowed on RW etc. My interests are primarily historical - and I have found participants on other wikis prepared to do the constructive version of pass the parcel on stubs (eg ). Most people have 'ideas which can be written on a sticky-note and want the "proverbial someone else" to pursue or at least cooperate in the writing of' (to use a second knotted metaphor): one or two up from the To Do list but not developed enough for a stub and requiring more varied input than the initiator is in a position to give. Could a 'PSB and cooperation sticky notice board' be created?

I do have a sense of humour and know 'words are just words' but...: and everybody is entitled to their peculiar hobbies, whether Morris Dancing, slash fiction or discussing the offside rule (whose main function appears to be 'annoying people). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found participants on other wikis who are willing to dress up as anthropomorphic animals for sexual kicks, but I don't judge RW poorly for lacking such a culture (although one of them was oddly cute, but I'll get drunk tonight and try not to be turned on by a fox). It's just about learning the culture of the community, and the mechanisms in place. "Pass the parcel" is a valid brainstorming approach, but it just doesn't work here. Personally when I see an article that's been left as little more than a verbose dictionary definition I wonder why on earth they bothered to write it? We should only write articles if we're able to contribute something worth reading (if only for lulz). The to do list is there for what you described. If you start an article but feel that it would benefit from another viewpoint (or perhaps expertise you lack) then post it in the list. However, you should at least be able to write a paragraph or two yourself.


 * Heh heh, the post-it note analogy is very apt. The "pass the parcel" system reminds me of an annoying housemate who does little housework themselves, instead choosing to occupy their time by leaving little post-it notes with tips such as "This table would look great if you polished it!". The co-operation board isn't a bad idea. I think we should at least steer new users to an area where they can very easily ask questions. Over time though I see the Saloon Bar and forums as being good places for finding collaborators. I think what we have here is just some cultural confusion. This place is highly disorganised, and order is most typically asserted by certain editors banging their shoes on the podium and yelling. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, since the shoe bangers also tend to be pretty damn good to have around. The chaos is also an indication as to why Hamster is still around. It's fairly arbitrary at times, but it works. Swearing is fun and cool, but truly offensive behaviour is frowned upon. Kruschev is free to bang his shoe all he likes, but he'll get his arse kicked if he tries to whack people with it.


 * We probably don't have the culture to support "pass the parcel", at least not site-wide. You could perhaps post in the forums to look for people to collaborate on a specific theme. By default "pass the parcel" already exists, and works fine, so long as the original article can stand on it's own as an acceptable article. -- 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may add...
I apologise for swearing on your page after you expressed dislike for coarse language. Acei9 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "There has been no explanation for the allowance of swearwords scattered across the wiki" - but why the hell shouldn't these be allowed, & why should there need to be any explanation?  Really, I don't think there's all that much swearing in RW articles, but when there are a few curse words, it's really no problem for most of the site's demographic.  As for what people say on talk pages, they are generally free to say what they like & express it as they wish.  If people use threatening, abusive or racist language, that becomes a different issue, but there is no restriction against people using swear words, neither should there be.   18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was taught in technical rhetoric class to always consider the audience, which amounts to that demographic thing. Here it is the midst of RW, and us all swearing and shit poop oopsie nastiness, but from this moment hence I do solemnly vow to consider this space to be a coarseness-free zone, and feel free to swat me with a nice heavy floppy trout if I screw that up in future. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Count the number of swearwords on this talk page: and on other pages in general.

Go to any other wiki and see how many swearwords there are - my impression is few or none (allowing for dicdefs etc).

I find this level of swearwords offensive - and yes, slightly threatening. I suggest you use this level of swearwords in your workplace and see what response you get. Nor do I approve of Hitler being used in a humorous sense - Godwin's Law.

You refer to the demographic of Rationalwiki - how many potential users look at the site and the 'look at this silly viewpoint' type remarks and go away without making a comment.

There should be a greater market for stub and 'persons passing through with ideas which they can't presently develop.'

As it says on the list of Things I will do if I am ever the Hero:

If I find myself born or drafted into a universe wherein the laws of nature do not obey consistent principles, I will depart for an alternate universe created by a more reasonable author.

As there are other places where my contributions are better appreciated and others wish to develop (if appropriate), I #really, really, really# see no point in continuing this discussion. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Jackiespeel / talk / contribs
 * Good. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is not a workplace & does not need to conform to the formalities of one. If you're looking for a bland, cosy, mainstream, family-friendly site where irrelevant brain farts are appreciated, this ain't it, & frankly maybe you're better suited to one of those other sites.  Try Conservapedia, or Citizendium.   00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear like a vicious bastard in my work place and no one cares (I work in an office and frequently deal with conservative old fat woman and even YECer BTW) and for fucks sake sign your fucking posts! Sweet Creeping Jesus why the fuck can you not fucking learn? Acei9 00:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard people in teaching positions use words like "fuck" and "cunt" and "fucking cunt." Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way RationalWiki is, and that's the way it fuckin' stays. 00:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We write here like we speak - and that includes various amounts of swear words. It's perfectly legal.  We don't care what other wikis do.  If our general tone and use of language makes you feel "threatened" I'm not sure what to tell you, other than perhaps "change the channel".  PS, you should check out our images...
 * We have no idea, obviously, how many people look and leave (other than server stats, I guess). We do have a steady influx of new editors, though.
 * Why should there be a "greater market" for useless, undeveloped articles?
 * If you really see no point in continuing this discussion... why are you?
 * People above have repeatedly offered suggestions on how to get more of your article ideas accepted here. Repeatedly, and kindly.  People in the section below have offered to help you learn the ropes and even defend you as much as possible.  I don't know what else you expect, other than that perhaps it isn't something we have on offer here.  02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, I forgot this one... RW is the sixth hit on Google for Godwin's Law. I suspect we understand it.  02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people swear, some people only under particular circumstances: fair enough. Just because one office allows one person to swear does not mean it is permitted elsewhere. The persisting use of swearwords, and mocking particulars of others' views does not add to the argument. Persisting in the use of swearwords when someone says they do not like it is at best inconsiderate and at worst bullying. Or does the continued use of swearwords indicate that people here feel threatened.

It is too late for any offers of help: I would have been prepared to develop some of the stubs #if# people hadn't reacted in they way they did (putting in inappropriate headings, funspacing etc etc etc). Other websites (and places) appreciate what I do (there will always be some 'no shows/too marginals): and not all of them are family friendly or bland etc.

PLEASE, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, ADD ANY FURTHER COMMENTS TO THIS PAGE. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Jackiespeel / talk / contribs

King Arthur
I think I know enough about Arthurian legend to be able to make it into something on-mission. Dare I try, or have you given up here? 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. By the way, I see you've been having trouble with the mob here. If you need somebody to help advocate for you and/or show you the ropes a little better, come hit me up on my talkpage. I certainly don't promise to side with you all the time, but I understand (from experience) that the mob here can be very intimidating to newer users, and am more than willing to help you advocate you position with regards to articles and the like. Just let me know. Cheers!  23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. I'm a swell guy.   23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)