RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 16 January 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Civilization:Evolution

I used to play the PC-based version of Side Meier's Civilization II a while back (and spent far too many long nights doing just one more turn), now I've got the Nintendo-DS version of Civilization Revolution. It struck me how there could be a Conservapedia "nation" with Great Leader Andy Schlafly. The game starts at 4000 BC so that would fit in quite nicely. I can see Conservapedians only having Despotism and Fundamentalism as systems of government. There could be additions to the Great Persons roll call like Wiliam Dembski (Wiliam Dembski arrives in your city, you may either lose all of your current scientific knowledge, or all future knowledge is curtailed by 50%). Or a great wonder "The Creation Museum" has been built, creation of all new units is delayed by one turn. Anyone else got ideas? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:01, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I loved Civilisation. Still have it on an old box here somewhere. um.... only one I can think of is "Rapture" - lose 9/10ths of your population, slowing everything down, but oops... you're still here too. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I almost tanked a semester as an undergrad playing Civ II. The worst was when you sent a caravan halfway across the world only to have a goddamned barbarian or something kill it when it was almost where you wanted it to go. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 21:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I used to have II but have III on my PC now. Man, I used to make alliances to get tech and gold and then break them ASAP. Now that's deceit:). "People discover rational thought. Reverses benefits of the temples"--Nate River 21:14, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I still play Civ IV with both expansions from time to time. The last expansion added corporations to the game; every corporation has to be founded by a particular type of great person and have particular resources to operate and provide its bonus. So, I'd suggest that a Conservapedia nation should have a special "Defense contractor" corporation, founded by a great prophet, whose necessary resources are military veterans and rich white men from Texas. It's bonus would be "50% more civilian casualties in foreign wars." (Full disclosure: I work for a defense contractor; the comments above were pure snark.) OneForLogic 14:44, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia, Leader, Andy Schlafly, Traits: Spiritual, Expansionistic, Special Unit: Homskollar (Replaces warrior) Special building Homeschool classroom (replaces university). preferred Civic: Theocracy.EternalCritic 15:05, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Rate of tech discovery cut by 90%. Population growth is zero because of legally mandated abstinence for all in order to eradicate HPV. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 22:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'm making this civ.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 01:48, 14 January 2009 (EST)

CIVILIZATION IS AWESOME. Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong Ryan 02:23, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Something I expect to see on CP fairly soon

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I never knew Hitler was a Muslim! Totnesmartin 04:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I'm suprised it didn't pop up already. Do they have any Hitler on the Obama article, I can't remember? ArmondikoV^postate 07:41, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Of course Hitler was a Muslim, why do you think he hated the Jews? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Pardon me for being so blunt, but this is the most pathetic whiskey bar I've ever seen, and I don't even drink. You people party with all the enthusiasm of a decaying Gila monster. The electrocutioner 16:39, 12 January 2009 (EST)

This is more tavern conservsation for those of us with no lives. Outside of the internet, that is. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:18, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Community Chalkboard

I thought that the saloon bar might be a good place to put links to ongoing discussions like the current ones about site policy etc. - like some of the stuff that goes out over the intercom, but keeping it visible a bit longer. So I've designed the Community Chalkboard as a place to note these messages, & added it here as a template. (I had to put it below the beer & whisky as it was skewing the arrangement). If people like the idea, I'm hoping we can also display it at a few other prominent places, like WIGO:CP talk, main page talk & maybe even the main page itself.

There's also a chalkboard template, which can be used to make similar chalkboards for other things (e.g. on user pages, etc.). The only slight problem at the moment is that links appear in blue (as usual), which looks bad against the black background. If anybody knows a way to make links inside the template appear in a friendlier colour (e.g. yellow), please make the appropriate changes. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Q&D fix is to manually enter the links with font color tags, like we do with our sigs. Could also try making the blackboard green, or greyer (like they usually are)? ħuman 20:17, 12 January 2009 (EST)

For some reason that I can't completely work out, I can't get that to work. It works on the basic Chalkboard template, but not on the Community Chalkboard, probably as a result of riding off the other one. It just makes all the text vanish. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:41, 12 January 2009 (EST)

set up a class in mediawiki:common.css like: a:link {color: #EEEEEE} or somesuch & use it on the whole "div". ? (with cheese)_{talk to Toast} 20:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)(see here

I see Jeeves was ahead of me! (with cheese)_{talk to Toast} 20:58, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Vabal Registration

Anyone who wants to register with the cabal (or 'vabal' as I like to call it): Please apply on my talk page. I am ve veader. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:15, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I need volunteers. Otherwise I may have to force a user into the cabal. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 21:08, 12 January 2009 (EST)

My advice to your CUR is give up. - User $\pi$ 02:10, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I believe you mean 'you' not 'your'. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 12:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Look. I really think we do need a portion of RW dedicated to actually doing things, a to-do group if you will. That's what I imagined my 'vabal' doing. And talking vith va Vanyslvanian vaccent. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)

A to-do group for "actually doing things"?? CUR, what the hell are you talking about? Are you too busy talking in silly accents to notice that stuff is being actually done on the wiki all the time by the people who are interested in to-doing it? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'm talking about a more organized system for getting things done. For example, if we needed a tech problem worked out, we could send a message to a specific skill group telling them what the problem was. They would then start on ways to fix it. Or, if we wanted to infilerate Conservapedia, we'd have a skill group for that too. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:19, 13 January 2009 (EST)

And what is your specialist skill? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'd catoragize myself as the 'person who initiates major reforms by managing to bring them to everyone's attention', 'science wiz', and 'strategic planner for undermining CP.' --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:24, 13 January 2009 (EST)

CUR people tend to learn who to turn to for certain problems based on their contributions. At the moment I would only turn to you if I wanted someone skilled in starting long discussion threads that go nowhere. - User $\pi$ 19:26, 13 January 2009 (EST)

And I'd only turn to you if I wanted someone who can make a stupid spelling or grammer mistake every few posts. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Vor valking vike vhis. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:28, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Vhat's vour point? --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't even turn to him for that, the only reason the threads look long as that his signature takes up half a acre per usage. I wouldn't even turn to him if I was curious about cat species. I suppose, however, that if I found myself short on "v"s I'd track him down to get a few. ħuman 19:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I would steal "v"s off WP like we do with commas. - User $\pi$ 19:33, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Good point.... hehe... ħuman 19:44, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Human, I'm no idiot. And I know a great deal more about cat species, and indeed zoology in general, than anyone else on this site. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well, at least we know where to turn if we need some unfounded bragging. ħuman 19:44, 13 January 2009 (EST)

That could be because no one else cares. - User $\pi$ 19:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Pi, you don't put a question mark after a statement. And I have a college reading level- and I did when I was in 5th grade. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:41, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Please stop boasting. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:44, 13 January 2009 (EST)

CUR you don't need 20+ colons. I admit I probably don't have a college reading level, but I got through fine. I thought I had written a question, turns out upon rereading I didn't so I fixed it. - User $\pi$ 19:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)

You're the people who made me get on the defensive. I don't strut around bragging. I do offer counterexamples when I am told I am an idiot. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:50, 13 January 2009 (EST)

We didn't make you get defensive, you became defensive. It is not healthy to blame others for your emotions. - User $\pi$ 19:59, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Calling me an idiot will make anyone with enough brain to know what they're being called get on the defensive. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:09, 13 January 2009 (EST)

You are missing my point you are attributing an entirely internal thing, your emotions, to an external force. Your emotions are affected by you thoughts not what someone says or does to you. - User $\pi$ 20:14, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Has anybody actually called you an idiot? As far as I can tell, you seem to be taking a lot of personal offense at a graphic of a smiley laughing & spitting coffee. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I think we all know what he meant by that. And Pi's been a lot more obvious in his dislike of me in other places as well. As has Human. As have several other unnamed people. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:17, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I don't dislike you, I dislike some of your behaviour. You need to manage your constant need for attention. - User $\pi$ 20:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, come on. I don't dislike you nearly as much as I disliked Proxima. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I got news, Pi: I hate attention. There is nothing I hate more than attention. Given the choice, I'd greaty prefer to be just another sysop. That's hard to do if people are constantly attacking your actions. Why do I hate attention? Because people tend not to like me. As evidenced here. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:22, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Then why did you start this whole vabal spamming people's talkpage, spamming the mainpage tal, spamming the intercom, spamming here, if you don't want people to pay attention to you? - User $\pi$ 20:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Rather than getting defensive, why not think about what it might be causing people to be irritated by your behaviour? I don't mean this viciously, but I think some more self-awareness would help you get on better at RW. People don't have unlimited patience for things like all the "vabal" stuff. & It is obvious that you demand a lot of attention, even if that's not how you like to think of yourself. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:29, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(Repeated from other section) I'm not trying to be mean here, but you do repeatedly and intentionally draw attention to yourself. Also, your repeated tactic of correcting simple spelling and grammatical errors and using them as proof of your superiority is certain to rub just about anybody the wrong way. You may very well mean it in a joking manner, but it doesn't come across that way in type. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 20:34, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I needed members. Vhat can I vay? After that, I planned to fade into obscuraty. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:38, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Why not fade into "obscuraty" without members? Or just get on with other things? You only started this "vabal" thing a couple of days ago. Why is it so damn important? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:45, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Non relevant chat

I've just been going through Conservapedia's moon article and its talk page. I'd forgotten how much fun they are. Must return to reading them once a month or so. & the talk page gives some lovely Andy v TK moments, not to mention TK v YEC moments - so expect it to be vanished before long.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 02:04, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe we need somewhere where we can post our favorites. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:29, 13 January 2009 (EST)

See here  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 22:12, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Genghis's astrology project

How is that big astrology project going? I was having a look at it, are you ready to move it to main space yet? - User $\pi$ 07:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I've got a backlog of emails to analyse but someone else was posting their missives from Jenna and I realised that there are a lot more things that those charlatans try and swing on the gullible and keep on doing it for quite a while even with no response. I even got this (just an extract) today:

It is very important that you pay great attention to what I have to tell you now because this morning I HAD A VERY POWERFUL FLASH CONCERNING YOU.

I am going to be direct with you, I know that at the moment all of your attention is directed towards your love-life and you feel that certain things are escaping you in your romance, you are asking yourself a great deal of questions and you have doubts and uncertainties about your relationships. You are hesitating about which path to take and I can feel the doubt and uncertainty which lies deep in your heart about your partner because you don't want to make any mistakes but you feel that all control is abandoning you and you experience a certain distress and even panic sometimes because you feel that you no longer have all of the cards in hand.

I had this flash about you this morning because I felt this distress that you are going through this morning and I felt that I had to help you. First of all I will not hide the fact that the situation you are in at this time is extremely delicate and you cannot afford the slightest error. I had this flash about you not only because I felt your distress but also because I know that an important event lies ahead for you Clint, an event which will occur very soon over the next couple of days at the exact moment that Venus will find itself in retrograde with your 8th House (a very rare event in your astral configuration). I won't go into too many technical details but basically over the next few days you will be able to act fast to regain control over your relationship and what you will do at this time will be vitally important for the future of your relationship. You must make certain choices about your romance over the next couple of days.

so the data are still being accumulated. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:41, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, how did you know Genghis? - User $\pi$ 08:04, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Uh... "Clint"? That's your name, or just a random placeholder name used by the astrologer? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

My real name but just one of about 8 names I signed up with to see how the readings varied by gender, employment & marital status. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:23, 13 January 2009 (EST)

"Flash! A-aah! Saviour of the universe!" --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Can we have a link to the project, Clint? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:48, 13 January 2009 (EST)

It's here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

HANNITY

Hello all.

So over the weekend I was drinking and signed up for the hannity.com forums. I don't know if any of you guys have ever been there, but the rules are kind of odd, to say the least. Like, I want to describe it as "fascist" but I know that associating the word "fascist" with anything Hannity does seems kinda cliche, but there's no other way to describe it. Users have to ask permission to link to other websites, you're not allowed to show contempt to Oliver North because he's a dear friend of Sean's, and there's like eight hundred thousand rules that serve to do nothing but make all of the users kiss the ass of the moderators.

So, imagine my surprise when I got banned fairly quickly. I know, a dude with a RatWiki account getting banned within 24 hours. What a shocker. The odd part about it, however, is that I was banned for being a "retread," which is apparently their word for "people who were banned and then returned." I had never been to this site before Sunday of this week.

I rather politely pointed this out to them and got all sorts of flak about it. Not just from the moderators, but from the brown-nosing users sticking up for them. The moderators have referenced "data" and "evidence" which they are not going to share because then other people would know how to evade them, and the users backed them up on this like it was the word of God. Nobody has ever seen any of the "evidence" used to ban anybody, they just blindly accept whatever the moderator tells them. Nobody even questions the possibility that the moderators are just making things up as they go along, and the users argue that this is impossible until they are blue in the face.

What in the hell kind of oddball establishment is Hannity running over there? Is this really the core of the Repubican party? ^{— Unsigned, by: Bingosherlock / talk / contribs}

Sound exactly like the core of the Republican party. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:31, 13 January 2009 (EST)

And like a certain blogopedia many of us follow just for the laughs... ħuman 13:07, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Security

Will the pictures of alcohol and drinking emotes at the top keep the CP spies away? On a side note, why are we being shovelled into here? EddyP 13:06, 13 January 2009 (EST)

And isn't "Saloon bar" a bit redundant? CЯacke® 14:24, 13 January 2009 (EST)

That's already been mentioned. I don't think anyone's suggested anything better yet. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:56, 13 January 2009 (EST)

It's basically to stop general discussion from clogging up WIGO:CP as that gets the majority of the traffic, it grows quickest and often stuff gets archived very, very quickly. So anything not massively important, new or "holy crap this has never been seen before!" can move here. Stuff like "eugh, CP is down again" or "man, Andy is being a cock today" can have a place to go without it getting in the way of better things. In theory at least. ArmondikoV^postate 15:05, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Jinx Baiting Withdrawals?

For those missing their daily recommended allowance of Jinx Baiting, now he has retired from CP, I noticed that little Jinx _{hi Jinx!} has now taken to posting inane comments on the hive of scum and villany that is Ray Comfort's blog. Go bug him there, and at the same time stick it to Comfort for being a total trolly ignoramus. --JeevesMkII 14:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

As one does, I went there but became sidetracked onto "needgod.com" now I'm nearly finished taking a test the eighth question of which is: "Have you ever broken the first Commandment?" (which turns out to be:""You shall have no other gods before Me."). Now how should honestly answer that question as a total atheist?  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 02:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

PS; I've wound up in hELL!!  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 02:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I think I've taken that test before, even if you tell it you're a total sinless saint it still assumes you're a liar, thief and what have you and sends you directly to hell. I guess javascript, like god, knows all the secrets of our hearts. --JeevesMkII 02:49, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Tried it four times now, tailoring my answers based on previous comments. Damned if you do - damned if you don't!  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 02:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Heh, I went and had a look at it again. They're not even using the original sin get out clause that means everyone has to join their stupid religion no matter how good they are. They're actually claiming their god is a prick who deliberately made rules that he knew no one would be able to follow. You've got to wonder about the sort of personality who could believe this crap, and still think the god they believe in was worth worshipping. --JeevesMkII 03:08, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Look, I am sorry

Thread moved from WIGO:CP talk

From what I understand from the ongoing policy discussion, the thing to do when someone posts something like what was posted--Karajou's name, Mrs. Karajou's name, their address, phone number, and pictures of the exterior and interior of his house, including the kids' bedrooms from a realtor's site--was to delete. My bad for not deleting the right way. Perhaps more detailed instructions could be posted. But given the difference between broken wiki links and stalking...TheoryOfPractice 15:41, 13 January 2009 (EST)

In light of a breach of that magnitude, you probably did the right thing, so don't worry :). The only better option is to delete the text and trust the mob, or delete the text and ask Trent to reinstall oversight. You had great motivations, and thanks for conducting yourself and this site with an eye towards maintaining our standards of non-creepiness and good-guy persona.-caius (heckuva job!) 15:44, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I would oppose the reinstallation of oversight, as it is just too damn creepy. Something like that thing that RWW used when Proxima complained would be good. Phantom Hoover 15:47, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)I didn't realise that was what had been posted and agree, that is way over the top. Despite Mr. (We all know your real name anyway it was in the LA Times) Karajou revealing details that were obtained through privileged information, i.e. checkuser. I think Trent may have been too cautious in removing oversight, there is a case for a small group to have that power for instances just like this. Ghostsucker, I appreciate you concerns about oversight but I would suggest that any uses of it be open to review. Also I would regard checkuser as much more creepy. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)

The reason I am scared by oversight is that when it is used, the edit vanishes, with no logs. The deleterevision extension is perfect in these situations, as it removes the edit but leaves a placeholder showing where it was. Phantom Hoover 15:59, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I don't know what Oversight is. The thing at RWW is just the ability to hide revisions ([1]), although it only hides them from people who don't have that ability. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:08, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I think the "hide/delete revision" function would be a good addition, in that it's as effective as oversight but not as draconian. I'm glad we're taking steps to hide other people's private info in this case; I think we should be in the business of protecting not just our anonymity, but the other guys' too. Even if we hate their online work, talking about them IRL just crosses a line.-caius (heckuva job!) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Now that the dust has settled, who was the troll who caused the mess by posting the details? Quite the exploit, managed to take the wiki down for over an hour. ħuman 18:31, 13 January 2009 (EST)

It was a BON, and, in my glaring display of incompetence, no, I did not remember to take note of what its digits were. There may have been a "5" in there somewhere. TheoryOfPractice 18:34, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Meh, it was an IP out of a Chinese proxy. Nothing of note there. tmtoulouse 18:36, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, must be one of those vicious criminals who vandalize CP all day long, then. They're after us now, too??? ħuman 19:23, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Whoever it was, I think he got himself a bit of unexpected forum-cred from this. ;-) --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Hasn't anyone called the FBI yet? DogP 20:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Aftereffects

Not meaning to add to anyone's sorrows, but in the restoration of WIGO:CP talk's history, any username longer than 14 characters is cut off - e.g. changes (before the lockdown) by TheoryOfPractice show as by "TheoryOfPracti", by KrissAkabusiAwooga (or whatever) show as "KrissAkabusiAw", & others. As far as I can tell, this means existing difflinks for wigo-talk are still valid, but the information on these people's contributions logs is now corrupted as it's split between two logs (one with their shortened username for WIGO talk, & one with their full username for everything else). Is this permanent or fixable? (NB. I'm not trying to nag TMT or anyone about fixing this now, just bringing it to attention to discuss whether it needs to be fixed). Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:07, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Fuck. It is fixable in a manual sort of way. Anyone feel like helping? 216.221.87.112 20:19, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Is that Trent? I may be able to help out tomorrow, if it's something I'm able to do. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:31, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(wikidata tidied away: list of affected usernames here and corrections here)

Discuss

Fill in the "" with whatever user name should be in there. 216.221.87.112 21:12, 13 January 2009 (EST)

OK, I get it now. What about ones that are already the correct name (nearly half of the ones I've been through so far)? Do I need to do the same for them, or just delete them from the list? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:33, 13 January 2009 (EST)

The search criteria I used was just edits to the tWIGO page with exactly 14 characters, if they are correct they can be removed. 216.221.87.112 21:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I think he grabbed all the 14 letter names. Ones like GL should just be deleted since they are fine. ħuman 21:36, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Other than 2 people who appear to have left no other record we are done. - User $\pi$ 21:52, 13 January 2009 (EST)

That's the last of them. & We do have people with some extremely silly user names. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:56, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Great work! Thanks guys, I will just pull this over and run it and see what happens :). 216.221.87.112 21:58, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I debuttonated it for easier copying. ħuman 22:00, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Okay I ran it, hopefully everything is right in the world. 216.221.87.112 22:03, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Excellent. Thanks for all your work tonight. I've deleted the data stuff from above, as we don't really need it clogging up this page any more, & added difflinks to it (before & after name corrections) in case any further followup is ever needed, but hopefully it shouldn't be as everything looks OK now. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 13 January 2009 (EST)

You guys are such pros, nice work. All I did was add (and then delete) buttons, fix a couple of usernames, and then get EC'd to death :) ħuman 23:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Oversight

I am going to do something I rarely do..I am going to dictate policy by fiat, because I am the one that has to waste an hour of his life cleaning things up, not you. You can not delete pages with 30,000+ revisions......don't do it, ever. The mob wants to be able to get rid of edits, and that is what oversight is for. Until such time that the mob decides we will never have need of to removed revisions from the database it will stay. Currently I have it. Pick 2-3 people who are established members of the sight, who most people trust. Ideally pick at least a couple that themselves don't get along that great. Then you have some oversight of oversight. All oversighting leaves a log, I, and the other oversight people will know when it has been done and if it was not done for a good reason then that person will no longer have oversight. tmtoulouse 17:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well the not get along is easy, RA and Human then. - User $\pi$ 17:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Can haz too?-caius (heckuva job!) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Owing to time zone differences I think there should be at least one European. Just off the top of my head, AKjeldsen, BobM, Sid or myself are all long time members. It's really a matter of who is around the most to respond. I heartily agree with peer-review of any oversight actions. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:57, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Any crat can move someone into oversight, just discuss before you do it. Keep it to a minimum, right now it is just me and I am not going to be around enough to do much more than monitor it's use. tmtoulouse 18:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'm around fairly (too?) often, but if this is something that requires any technical skills, I'm probably not the best choice. Also, perhaps Trent should make a brief list of "stuff a sysop never ever should do"? Could as well have been me as Theory to do something like this. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed, that it is a good idea, I am not trying to fault anyone. The problem is one I face all the time which is that you usually don't know what people will do that they shouldn't until they do it. I will see what can be put together. tmtoulouse 18:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Don't stick beans up your nose! AK, I don't think it's hard to do, it probably looks like the "deleted article" revision history, right? ħuman 18:29, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I think that'd be a great idea. Maybe just starting with a list of things that make Trent's life harder? I, too, am not particularly media-wiki savvy. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 19:07, 13 January 2009 (EST)

"I heartily agree with peer-review of any oversight actions." Me too. How about once we've picked our small gang of evil overseers, we insist that any oversight action must be immediately reported to another overseer to "second" that it was the right thing to do? ħuman 18:34, 13 January 2009 (EST)

The primary concern is that there is no public log right? I will just make one. tmtoulouse 18:39, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I was about to suggest that! NightFlare 18:41, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I was about to suggest something simple like RationalWiki:Oversight log with a table of the oversighter, page, revision number and short comment, but if Trent wants to go the whole hog let him. - User $\pi$

So we're going to have oversight with oversight? Sounds tasty. Oh, and I had an idea, it might suck, but it might be good. How about we split the vast powers, by not letting anyone be both a bureaucrat and have oversight? Thoughts? ħuman 19:26, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting idea, although looking at the bureaucrat list that rules out everyone suggested so far. - User $\pi$ 19:31, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well we don;t need a zillion crats, so perhaps whoever of us get picked could be decratted? Heck, I've done like one demotion in weeks... or months... and that was to crat TOP. ħuman 20:09, 13 January 2009 (EST)

There is an oversight-like tool with a public log, called "deleterevision". Unlike oversight, which removes any trace of the edit in question ever existing (at least to the public), deleterevision leaves behind a placeholder, letting people know that there was once something there (and making it harder to abuse). On top of that, it uses the same log as deletions–observe. It would also be easy for Trent to add—he'd just have to add "$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['deleterevision'] = true;" to LocalSettings, and he'd be done. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:03, 13 January 2009 (EST)

That sound like what we need, well that is all sorted now. - User $\pi$ 20:06, 13 January 2009 (EST)

By the way, Human's observation that deleterevision only hides the edit from those who don't have the deleterevision power isn't necessarily true—in the menu the ability brings up, if you set it to "Apply these restrictions to sysops as well as others", then the revision is hidden from everyone, even sysops and bureaucrats. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:09, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Vote Caius for oversight!-caius (heckuva job!) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I not burrowcrat am. I most often here are. I can oversigh?  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk&nbsRobin Redbreasp;to Toast} 20:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

You are a bureaucrat now problem solved. - User $\pi$ 20:53, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Thanx (I think) Can I Promote CUR to editor?  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 21:05, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I already have edit rights. I'm a sysop. RA promoted demoted me. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 21:07, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Precisely: I'm indicating a reversal of RA's strange action.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 21:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Mostly harmless my friend, mostly harmless. 216.221.87.112 21:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'm fine as is. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 21:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, CUR hasn't done anything stupid he couldn't have done with just edit rights. - User $\pi$ 21:50, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I know, was joke, just wanted to slap CUR with trout!  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 21:52, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Now on the other hand if you want to promote him all the way to the vandal bin.... - User $\pi$ 21:53, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'm no vandal. Having odd views doesn't make you a vandal. Name one instance of me vandalising something. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 12:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Think Pi was being jocular but, as you ask: every time you use that bloody awful signature! fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 13:27, 14 January 2009 (EST)

It's smaller now. And I admit readily I have a long user name. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 13:43, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Look here! fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 13:55, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Back on topic, I have created a debate about this, as it's getting buried here. Phantom Hoover 13:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

The CP Special Discussion Group

Someone on Wikiindex posted a link to a download of what looks like the SDG archives. (It doesn't appear booby-trapped to me, and it's got their unique blend of idiocy and paranoia that makes me think it's for real.) Posting said link here might be a trifle gauche, but a little digging in the history of the CP page there can find it. --Gulik 17:56, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Let it go, we have already had one server crash today. Actually if you didn't mention it here people wouldn't know to look for it. How about everyone doesn't tell the whole world about what they found and we won't need oversight? - User $\pi$ 18:47, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Although some people here were given access to the SDG and read the contents, there was a consensus that we would not publicly promote or publish them as they were originally written with with an expectation of privacy as it was supposed to be a closed group. It was one of their own who committed the treachery and they have apparently clasped the viper back to their bosom like the prodigal son. Whether he'll do the same again we're not yet sure. All I can say to Andy is Carry on Cleo, it's your asp. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:10, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(EC w/ Genghis saying exactly what I wanted to say) Our official position on it when TK made it public, I think, was that we wouldn't host it or leak it, but if it's out, it's out.-caius (heckuva job!) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I'm glad whoever did it, did it. I missed it the first time around, and it's making for very interesting reading. I may owe someone there an apology for thinking There Is No Cabal... --Gulik 19:47, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Damn. I'd love a glimpse into that cesspool of madness. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Follow what I said, and look at diffs. It's not that hard to find. It is quite fascinating in a "I want to reach through the screen and choke The Stupid out of them" sort of way. One fun thing I'm currently reading through is their big discussion of Hojimachong--making it crystal clear that their proud boast of not banning people for things on other sites is a huge lie. And nobody in the SDG called them on it. Sigh. --Gulik 20:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Awesome work on the heads up, G. I'd just started getting into it first time round when that bastard TK pulled the plug again. Cheers! :) --Robledo 20:50, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Holy crap!

Holy crap—Orac at Respectful Insolence linked to our Gish gallop article! (I know this is probably old news, but I still find this sort of recognition wonderful.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:32, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Haz permalink ?  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 20:36, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I thought I linked to it already? Well, here's the specific post he linked to us in. You have to scroll quite a ways down to find it, but he linked our Gish gallop article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:50, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Cant find it, (searched page for Rational, & Gish) but I'll take your word for it.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 21:57, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Do a ctrl+F for "one thing we". It's there. It's even there as "Gish gallop". Both are the only occurrences of the term on the page. Perhaps your page didn't load fully? Dreaded Walrus 00:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)

From Namespace debate

"The internet is full of idiots". Yeah, but I'm not one of them. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

- User $\pi$ 19:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Never could stand coffee. And by the way, the Latin name for butterflies and moths is Leptodapteria, from the Latin 'scaled wing.' I knew that at age 3. My IQ is 133, one point higher than the person who orchestrated the famous breakout from Alchatraz. So I'm no idiot. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:17, 13 January 2009 (EST)

1. No it itsn't, it's Lepidoptera. 3. Too bad you can't spell it. 2. Only idiots brag about IQs that low (or IQs in general). ħuman 19:34, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, so I misspell a long Latin name. And speaking of idiots, you have your 3 before your 2 on your list. By the way, that IQ puts me at genius level. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

You misspelled it while bragging about knowing it, dude. I put 3 second because I wanted to reply to your third point before your second. Genius? You're kidding, right? First, that 133 is "genius level", and second that you equate that word with yourself (of course, I am only going by what I have seen you contribute here, you might be a genius typing with a small paintbrush taped to your butt on a speak'n'spell behind you, while writing your third PhD thesis on your main computer) ħuman 19:49, 13 January 2009 (EST)

That isn't the impression that I get. - User $\pi$ 19:23, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well, it is true. Just because I can act foolish doesn't mean I am. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Gentlemen at this website, we have a Saloon for these things now, please. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:38, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well. It's a question of audience, really. Scholarpedia is clearly of a very high academic standard that we neither can nor should attempt to reach, but does it really address the "average person"? I sort of doubt it. If we are going to do this, we should probably find in niche somewhere between Scholarpedia and Wikipedia - communicating science topics in an accessible and understandable way, but without Wikipedia's NPOV. That could perhaps be a useful complement to our other mission objectives. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)

My thoughts exactly. I think RW can be much more intriguing than Wikipedia, which means people are more likely not to zone out. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:28, 13 January 2009 (EST)

You should write such an article sometime... most of us have, at one time or another. ħuman 19:37, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Look. I know I can act stupid, but I still try to work on my faults and make them better. One of my faults: I have never been good at getting my point across, and I'm a klutz when it comes to the social scene. Which the saloon bar might consist of. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, watch out for that. Making your faults "better", hmmm, you mean fine tuning them to perfection, or eliminating them? hehe. ħuman 19:50, 13 January 2009 (EST)

One will never elimate all of their faults. One can try to mimimize them. Which I try to do. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 19:53, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Well, try harder. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:11, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Why is everyone ganging up on me? --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 20:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

The evidence suggests that you volunteered. --Kels 20:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) I'm not trying to be mean here, but you do repeatedly and intentionally draw attention to yourself. Also, your repeated tactic of correcting simple spelling and grammatical errors and using them as proof of your superiority is certain to rub just about anybody the wrong way. You may very well mean it in a joking manner, but it doesn't come across that way in type. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 20:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Being a genius is easy. Being a SubGenius takes thirty dollars! --Gulik 00:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)

And it's guaranteed! Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 00:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, in my experience, 133 is average. People claim that the average should be 100, but from what I've seen, everyone who mentions their IQ always says it's 130-139. Anyway, as this is the internet, you have time to review posts and search infomation, congnitive ability (which is the only thing IQ is good for if it's even good for anything) isn't important because it's not a race and you're not having immediately react. What can apply online, is your reasoning ability, writing style and, to an extent, your knowledge - though google and wikipedia make this difficult to tell, one can appear to know everything but actually be getting the info from WP between posts. :S ArmondikoV^postate 04:31, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Internet IQ tests are unreliable, even if you don't cheat. My IQ is 180 according to one. I got 133 (coincidence?) on iqtest.com, and I wasn't even trying... -- Nx ^talk 05:33, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I thought all internet IQ tests were tied to some sort of cognitive enhancement product. The scores indicate you are bright but not real bright . . . so buy teh smart pills . . . I took one once and the description mapped to my score said "you are not a genius but people assume you are" which seemed right on the mark. Every time I dump coffee on myself or pull of some interesting maneuver in traffic other people are thinking "look at that genius". BTW: It is my impression that IQ is mostly woo due to limited scope, inherent verbal/cultural bias, and questionable existence of a single holistic kind of intelligence. i.e. IQ doesn't mapped to externally verifiable phenom like say temperature.

Finally: I'z smarta den all's yous bitches. I haz moar IQs. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 11:33, 14 January 2009 (EST)

It wasn't an internet IQ test. I'm intelligent. Deal with it. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 14:08, 14 January 2009 (EST)

As soon as there's evidence ;) ħuman 14:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)

What's the old saying, about smart people not needing to advertise they're smart? I forget...Z3ro 18:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Whoopdee whee. I got an 800 on the Reading SAT. And you know what? That doesn’t matter. IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER!! TESTS DON’T MEAN ANYTHING. If they did, Ken Jennings would be running the world as we speak! When you and I are lying cold and dead in the ground, nobody’s gonna give a fuck how well either of us did on some IQ test. What they will care about is what we did. All the Intelligence Quotient in the world doesn’t mean a thing if you hide behind it as a self-esteem defense mechanism, and those brain cells aren’t worth a good goddamn unless you DO SOMETHING WITH THEM!

I’m sorry I got so nasty over this. It’s just that you remind me a fairly good deal of me, and I hate it when I turn to some imaginary accomplishment in order to justify my sense of self worth instead of actually making myself useful to my community. At any rate, I’ve been pretty worthless to this community. Please, do yourself a favor—don’t be like me. The electrocutioner 21:44, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, an IQ of 133. That's three whole points higher than George W. Bush's! --Gulik 02:16, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Who the fuck brags about their IQ on the internet? CUR, if you're intelligent, please write some interesting SPOV articles or come up with some funny WIGOs. And consider making your signature an acronym.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I would like to point out that I was the one who came up with the radar WIGO. Which scored a 29. Not bad. And I considered making my signature an acronym, but then I'd lose so much lulz from making fun of my username. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 12:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Are you still here? I hoped thought you'd gone away.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 12:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)

The radar thing was hilarious, I almost wet myself. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:24, 15 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Sweet Jesus, you're bragging about how well your WIGOs score? Wow, I thought there was nothing lamer than WIGOing your own vandalism--once again, the internets prove me wrong. Congratulations, sir: you have re-defined "lame" and raised lowered the bar for all of us. Well done!!! TheoryOfPractice 12:27, 15 January 2009 (EST) I had absolutely nothing to do with the MOAR KITTY incident. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And since TomMoore brought up the subject of funny WIGOs, I think saying that I've come up with some funny ones is not bragging- merely correcting him. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{recent changes patroller} 13:49, 15 January 2009 (EST)

New section link at bottom of page

This little script adds a new section link to the bottom of discussion pages which looks like a ==Heading==. To use it, copy the addsectionbottom function and the addOnloadHook line below it to your monobook.js. You may need to force refresh (shift-f5 in firefox) to see it. Post comments, suggestions etc here please. -- Nx ^talk 09:14, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I asked someone (Pi) if that was possible sometime last week. Thanks Nx (strange name!) fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 09:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Works for me; thanks! fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 09:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Great! Works like a treat - thanks. See, it pays to hang out in dingy speakeasys. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:55, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You're welcome -- Nx ^talk 10:39, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I installed it ages ago, and it never worked. Latest Firefox on XP pro on antique P4. Any ideas? ħuman 14:39, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You mean monobook.js? Maybe it was the script you were using (the recent changes autorefresher), it's a fairly complex one. This is much simpler and should work on any decent browser as long as you have javascript enabled. -- Nx ^talk 15:01, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Hmmmm, looking at yours... I like the "CUR signature exchanger", what's that do? ;) ħuman 16:14, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I would assume it reduces the acreage of CUR's sig. Phantom Hoover 16:20, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Can we put that in common.js? - User $\pi$ 18:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Which one, the new section thing or the one that changes CUR's sig? ;) I'll put it into common.js soon, right now I'm still working on it, and I'd like to test a few more things. -- Nx ^talk 18:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

BTW, Human, is it working? -- Nx ^talk 18:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I see nothing different. Do I have to restart my browser? No new section link at bottom (that I see), and CUR's sig still looks the same. Well, smaller, though, since the last time I smaller-maked it in my edit war with him he left it smaller. Can I see a screen shot of what the link looks like? ħuman 19:04, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Try shift-f5. My talk page looks like this -- Nx ^talk 19:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I've got a [+] tab at the top of the page now (both IE & FF). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:34, 14 January 2009 (EST)

That was simply done by adding a magic word to the article, see talk page -- Nx ^talk 19:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Ok, now that I'm done with this script, should I move addsectionbottom to common.js?
As for the new script, it adds an "Add comment" link to the end of every section (equivalent to the [edit] links). It's a bit more complex, so use at your own risk. Here's how my talk page looks with both. -- Nx ^talk 20:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)

So far, phail. No new link at bottom of page. I ctrl F5'd right after copying in the js. ħuman 01:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)

RU using monobook_adfree? fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 01:20, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Yes sir, I am. I pay cash and don't look at ads. Is that the bust on this lovely device? ħuman 02:12, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Well: you'll need to put it in /monobook_adfree.js. (BTW the ads have gone from monobook! ) fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 02:19, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I've moved the addsectionbottom script to common.js (no complaints so far), and removed it from everyone's monobook.js just in case. -- Nx ^talk 08:00, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Could I suggest it be demoted to a level 3 header - it's a bit obtrusive now.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 13:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Sure. Better? -- Nx ^talk 15:52, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Goats

Moved from WIGO:CP talk page

Goats are sometimes arsonists. --CPAdmin1 10:56, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Come on now young fellow. Show some self-restraint! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Maybe it was retaliation for this. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:16, 14 January 2009 (EST)

PS. Hi Tim. Good thing we didn't block you. :-) I'm gonna move this discussion over to our new Saloon bar, as it isn't CP-related. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:16, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I refuse to believe it. In the immortal words of teh assfly, "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Also, welcome back Tim. Thought you abandoned us. ENorman 11:18, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Welcome back, Tim. As for the headline, I wonder if CP has a new suspect in the Wasilla Church arson case... --SpinyNorman 11:23, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Wouldn't have happened if only they'd had Long-eared jerboas. --JeevesMkII 11:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)

First cows in Chicago, now this. I am really beginning not to trust farm animals.--Nate River 22:04, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I haven't trusted them since I read Animal Farm ENorman 08:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Tobacco

Discussion moved to Debate:Tobacco.

Post the Karajou incident, cleaning other last names

The Karajou personal info incident got me thinking: I think we should also kill mention of TK's last name, except in the LA Times article (which just quotes the article that mentions his name). I'm going to start on that jihad.-caius (heckuva job!) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

We should agree a policy on stuff like this for the Community Standards. The old version had a privacy policy covering information given about other RationalWiki users (which would cover TK since he has an account here), but nothing specific about giving personal info of outside parties like CP sysops. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:20, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I have no problem with that, and I'll be glad to help out if I find any. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:27, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks: I think it's done, actually....-caius (heckuva job!) 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I don't like this at all. I think there is a very significant difference in that we actually have TK's name from a publically available source where he was quoted under his own name. If he had a problem with that information becoming publically known, he should have thought of that before making a public statement, just like I did before making a public statement. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

And Uncle Ed, Philip and Andy? How far do you want to go with this? The LA Times article put them in the public domain, along with PalMD. It's not as if they are being stalked through internet searches. If people give their name out in public then I don't see the problem. It's not like say Learn together or Fox who deliberately concealed their identity under pseudonyms. How about CollegeRepublican? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)

What about Ken DeMeyer, Man Of A Thousand Faces And Three Brain Cells? --Gulik 18:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Ed Poor is Ed Poor, and Aschalfly makes it clear that he is Andy Schlafly. Conservative/Ken

does not, at least not here or on CP. I've always assumes "Phillip J. Rayment" was a nom-de-plume for some reason. TheoryOfPractice 18:52, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Philip is his real name and you can easily find his mugshot (although he has also posted a picture of himself at CP) along with details of his church through Google. I think it may have even been posted on RW at some point. But there again, PJR hasn't really got anything to hide. He truly believes in his own religious tenets, he acts like a gentleman when dealing with others and demands proof to suport crazy claims. The only thing you could really fault him for is that he regards the Bible as a valid source of proof. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:30, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm a little lost here. Exactly what personal info ? JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 20:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Apparently somebody (using an anonymous proxy IP) posted Karajou's name, address, contact details & pictures of his home here on RationalWiki (now completely deleted). I think it was all obtained through info on the internet that is essentially publicly available (e.g. company websites, real estate site), but it's not a smart move for us to be hosting personal info like that. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:52, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks. Although my personal opinion is that we shouldn't be so decent with indecent people. If I find Brian's photo, I will post it. Honestly, we have mocked them in *every* possible way, and while I don't think is ethical to post his house's photos or his phone number, I don't see why we can't post his photo. --JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 21:06, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Getting back to TK: I hesitate to second-guess Caius, and his "better safe than sorry" policy does make sense, but on the other hand, we should be careful not to self-censor ourselves too strongly. I don't think any reasonable person would doubt that LATimes's "elite group" member Terry and Conservapedia's sysop TK are the same person, so there's nothing problematic about the source of our information. My immediate instinct is to put it back, although I would like some more comments from the Mob before I do anything. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:27, 14 January 2009 (EST)

So if a name is on any public source on the internet, we can't publish it? JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 21:34, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Honestly TK's name is the closest call, because we made the connection not by creepy stalkering, but by reading a damn article of his very own. Come on. But still, I do prefer to err on the side of caution, and lord knows we'd like CP to do the same.-caius (heckuva job!) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I gotta say, I don't think much of this double standard. We freely shout from the rooftops that Conservative's name is Ken Demyer, we name laws after him, even though i believe we only discovered his name not through his own disclosure or the LA times piece but by some snooping (am I correct?). When someone posted a link to PJR's picture here it was removed as an invasion of privacy, even though it was printed on CO with his name attached to it, whiel pictures of Ed Poor, found godknowswhere, get plastered all over the place. DickTurpis 22:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Well, those pictures of Ed Poor WERE posted by Ed Poor on CP with a caption that pretty much said said "This is me, Ed Poor."TheoryOfPractice 22:40, 14 January 2009 (EST)

This was a while ago, but there were some that weren't from CP, whereas the PJR one was (it was posted by someone else on their userpage, but it was a friend of his, and he clearly didnt object). It just seemed a different standard was hed for Ed, presumably because he's such a loathsome guy. So I wonder why try to protect TK's last name when we do just the opposite for Ken? DickTurpis 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

From Ames's edit summary, it would seem as though TK asked him to remove it....TheoryOfPractice 22:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Eh. Fuck him. DickTurpis 22:50, 14 January 2009 (EST)

We can be better than that. TheoryOfPractice 22:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Did he request this on site? We don't run this place though emails. - User $\pi$ 22:54, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Even if he did, does it really matter? We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. If Ken asked that we erase all references to his name would we? Could we? I think the chart below is pretty much right on the money. DickTurpis 22:59, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I think we just need a check list of what is and isn't appropriate:

Real names: okay(?)

Names of family members: bad

Photos they put of themselves on CP: okay

Photos obtained through Google stalking: bad

General area they live in: maybe (?)

Precise street address and phone number: very bad

There are lines that can be drawn easily between what is and isn't expectable. - User $\pi$ 22:38, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I pretty much agree with that, Pi. I'll go ahead and put TK's info back, and then we'll take it from there. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 23:04, 14 January 2009 (EST)

So I am not allowed to reveal DanH##### or Geo.plrd######## ####### real names? JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 22:50, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I would say it depends where you got them. If it was from comments they made at CP, WP or any other wiki/forum/blog they're known to edit, then yes it's fair to mention them as they've made it public. If it comes from email contact only, then no, that's private info & should remain so. If it comes from other internet sources which are more related to things in their real world lives than to their online activities, then it's a grey area since they've technically made it public, but it's better to respect their privacy. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:12, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I do wish you wouldn't readd his info AKJ, because I think it sends the right message to accede to his request in this case: it's reasonable, and destroys absolutely no information.-caius (heckuva job!) 23:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Honestly, Ames, it's from the LA Times, is it not? That's pretty damn public. And no one still has explained how this is different from Mr. DeMyer. Is it? DickTurpis 23:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You will note that the TK effect has occurred again: apparently covert emails causing dissension. I would suggest that any email from TK be either ignored or published in full in future, the guy's a past master at this, don't forget. (he's probably rubbing his hands & laughing at this thread. )fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 23:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

To reiterate Dick's point, fuck him, he wants us to argue we shouldn't give him the pleasure. - User $\pi$ 23:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Right on, Frohlich, but I actually agree with him in this case; he'd wanted his personal information pulled, and I've had a long-running taboo against publishing personal info. I do feel strongly about this and I hope you'll reconsider.

By the way, shortly you'll see a retirement message from me on talk:main page - please don't think they're related. I set this a while ago and I bear no ill-will to those of you who oppose me on this: AKjeldsen in particular knows I <3 him.-caius (heckuva job!) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, Caius, I think you overreacted. Especially if you deleted Team Killer's last name because he asked you to in an email. That said, wow, this is an ongoing, very complicated discussion. Stalking versus simple research? Information provided by people versus stuff they'd like to keep private? I lean towards, "if you can find it on the 'net, it's fair game" - except for the minors Andy forces to sign on and submit homework under their real name, of course. I reiterate: IF YOU CAN FIND IT ON THE NET IT'S FAIR GAME. Sorry for shouting. Now let's all get over our whiny selves and get back to telling the truth about crazy people. ħuman 01:00, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Our standards say: "Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site." Tk is (was) a user. His name is personal information. He has not volunteered it here.--Bob^{bing up} 02:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)

TK was never a "user" here in the accepted sense of the term, he was a troll and shit-stirrer. Did he ever make a constructive edit? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 03:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Do you meen 'constructive' or 'substantive'. I find this whole conversation frightening. 217.41.92.46 06:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Both. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:24, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I rather think that you are attempting to redefine "user" in order to avoid the clear meaning of the standard. I would suggest that a "user" is somebody who has registered a username and made a edit.--Bob^{bing up} 06:31, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Much as I dislike TK, this is a situation where - 1. He has an account here, even if he doesn't currently use it & even if we don't like the way he used it before, so he is covered by the privacy policy. 2. He has requested his full name be removed from the article. & 3. We don't gain anything by displaying his full name anyway. Knowing that he's Terry K-------- doesn't further our mission or change our analysis of what he does at CP in any way; it's basically just trivia. Since he's requested it be removed, fair enough. Leave it in the LA Times article article where it's relevant to who is being quoted, but take it down from the other places. It may be "fair game" in some ways, but it makes us look like assholes if we're displaying private info about people against their wishes & to no particular purpose. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:45, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Look he is doing this to start a fight, he saw the thing with Karajou yesterday and the debate we had about privacy and he wants to stir up trouble. If we remove his name from the articles he will just complain that it is in the page history so we will have to delete the articles in order to recreate them without the revisions, which will be nearly all the revisions of those pages, and he can then gloat at how we delete pages just like at Conservapedia. Fuck him, we shouldn't buy into his shit, he is probably getting enough pleasure now jacking off at us arguing. - User $\pi$ 07:51, 15 January 2009 (EST)

We won't delete the full history, but since (as far as I'm aware) he hasn't asked us to, that isn't an issue. If he does ever ask for that, we should refuse, because ultimately his name is already a matter of public record via LA Times. However, I don't think removing his name from current versions of other articles is an unreasonable request. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:11, 15 January 2009 (EST)

If it doesn't matter it is the page history and it is a matter of public record then why remove it from the current version? - User $\pi$ 08:14, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I am not aware of any request for his name to be removed other than in some alleged private email to Caius. If he wants it removed then he should apply on site where all members could have considered the issue. This site doesn't operate through backdoor influences. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:19, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Did Caius make him a sysop based on his email conversations? - User $\pi$ 08:21, 15 January 2009 (EST)

The short answer to that is "yes and no". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:05, 15 January 2009 (EST)

No, the answer is "no and no": I made him a sysop as a gag, after he blocked HJ for being a sysop over here. He never used his powerz, or I would've stripped them.-caius (heckuva job!) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Just to get back to the main conversation, there is a difference between posting the LATimes article and posting someone's last name all over your wiki/website/blog. One would have to dig a little bit to find someone's name on one page in the website, whereas if it's all over the wiki, it's not that hard. Yes, it's "public information," but there is still a difference. If CP were to find out once your name and then spread it through their wiki, even if it's public information, I think you would consider it pretty crappy. Just my opinion. Sterile^rationalize 09:17, 15 January 2009 (EST)

You know, I still can't see us doing this for Ken at his request (and he does have an account here too, remember Newton?), and his name wasn't even in the LA Times article. Why should we do this for Martin Bormann then? Or would we remove all references to "Ken Demyer" if he emailed one of us and requested it? It would involve deleting entire articles, and since we know Ken reads this, he obviously has the idea in his head. DickTurpis 11:24, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Quite frankly: Stuff him! he's not going to do to us what he's doing to conservapedia. Can we call an end to this please!  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 11:33, 15 January 2009 (EST)