RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive12

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <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>, (new)(back)

I need help[edit]

Ihe other night I dreamt about TK. Last night I dreamt about Karajou. Help me. Totnesmartin 06:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I had a similar experience once. I dreamt that I ordered a meal at a restaurant, it was some kind of cooked blue octopus that disproved the existence of god. Assfly came along and offered me $1m for it, to be paid in monthly installments of $500. I think it's TK's latest covert tactic, we're all too wary to read emails from him anymore so he's invading our dreams instead. I recommend a tinfoil hat. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 06:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Don't worry, I've had a dream where the RW community met up outside a school ran by Schlafly to hold a protest dressed as Star Wars characters. Or something like that, I'm sure it was much more entertaining than it sounds in that last sentence. ArmondikoVpathetic 07:33, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Just when I was thinking of taking another break I realised that I obviously don't spend as much time here as some. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 08:01, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
I finally had a CP-oriented dream the other night (I dream in wikimarkup all the time, but that's different). What's worse, I had to run through it twice, so that the second time I could smack Schlafly really hard with a phone before dialling 911... to stop him from killing a kid again. Weird f'ing dream. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:34, 13 March 2009 (EDT)



They're laughing at us! Do something![edit]

RationalWiki

They actually think they're funnier than we are! Proxima Centauri 15:26, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Uh... fail. Truthiness? Take it with a pinch of salt I suggest. User:Mei 15:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Isn't Elassint one of us? http://www.wikiality.com/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=148758&oldid=138189 User:Mei
Just like you think you're funny at Liberapedia? Wisest wisest Hoover! 15:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
He is one of us but we weren't always nice to him. We can start accounts there and explain what't really truthy about RationalWiki. We do know how to write funny stuff. Proxima Centauri 15:42, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC)Are you blind to obvious parody? Their logo has a picture of a spoof rightwinger. Wisest wisest Hoover! 15:47, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
That sounds massively boring. Wikiality is fail, it doesn't matter. And on closer inspection Elassint is a dick. User:Mei 15:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Having clicked the link I'm not sure that I can even raise sufficient interest to ignore it.--Bobbing up 15:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
I like Bob. Bob gets it. User:Mei 15:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
There are so many little wikis out there, trying to be funny. Liberapedia... Wikiality... Illogicopedia... Wisest wisest Hoover! 15:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
You left out Conservapedia. User:Ttony21/sig2 15:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
They are a) not trying and b) succeed. Wisest wisest Hoover! 15:53, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Wait I think you messed up...they are a)not trying and b)unsuccessful at the former User:Ttony21/sig2 16:26, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Wow, PC, they are laughing with us. Too bad about the typo in the first fucking sentence. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh come on, you can't expect every blatantly left wing satire site to be intelligent as us, the supremos of awesomeness and the sole proprietors of the funny on the net! ArmondikoVpathetic 06:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
No accounting for taste.--Nate River 22:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
I used to read wikiality before I came here. It is just a wiki based on the sayings of Stephen Colbert. The name Wikility was taken from on of his word segment, when he suggested you could change reality just by editing Wikipedia, he himself tripled the number of tigers or something so they were no longer endangered (got his account blocked for it too). - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 22:16, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
It was elephants, and, yes, wikiality is a SC fan site, basically. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:54, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Just to those who think they are funny - adding 'iness' to the end of everything doesn't make you humourous, e.g, truthiness. What is that? Its a bit like the quiet guy in the corner attempting to make a joke in a large group of people, which usually results in everyone standing in an awkward silence... MarcusCicero 07:33, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Suggestion[edit]

Should we replace all internal links in articles copied from cp and wp to interwiki links? This could be done automatically using a bot or a few lines of javascript. --  Nx/talk  05:06, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Not a bad idea, especially in CP namespace. If you can do your magic js that would be great. Bots are a problem because of the API. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 05:57, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
What's wrong with the api? Sure it doesn't have all the new features, but it's working for me, my js uses the api to edit (well, to get the edit token and the last revision date, it uses index.php to insert the text since editing through api.php was implemented in a later version). --  Nx/talk  10:08, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I am generally disinclined towards using interwiki "CP" links in articles copied from Conservapedia. My thought is that, why would we want to point a reader back to Conservapedia, land of crap articles that it is? The entire point of copying Conservapedia articles in the first place is so you don't have to go there to see it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:02, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I thought the entire point was saving them in case they were deleted? Totnesmartin 06:06, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
That too, though sometimes we copy them just for lulz (like several of ASchlafly's essays). Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:08, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't really mind one way or the other. Of course it can be a little bit smarter, for example replacing links to CP sysops' pages to the pages we have about them here (in the case of copied talk pages), only removing redlinks and not blue ones, etc. --  Nx/talk  10:08, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, I just went through and pointed all of the redlinks in the World History Homeworks to CP. The thought behind this was to show the reader (on RW) the ridiculousness of their "source material" (don't read a book, write a book mentality on CP). There were a few occasions where I pointed it to OUR stuff, if it was LULZworthy (i.e., analytical geometry points to conservapedian mathematics). If consensus prevails, I guess I am prepared to go back through and either fake redlink them instead, or remove the link commands altogether, or whatever. Just let me know. The Foxhole Atheist 16:57, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
It's hard when porting over from CP, yeah. One, to reiterate RA, any links that can be blue here should be RW wikilinks. Meaning that the red links have to be dealt with manually. For CP articles, simply deleting makes more sense than fake red links (unless there's a reason to show where they are linking?). Ditto for WP articles - like the one I brought over the other day, I removed a bunch of links, re-aimed a couple, and left all the people in the organization red, figuring that they would essentially be "on mission" people we might write about. IOW, I RWified the article. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:40, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit[edit]

I was thinking last night about the YEC argument that the reason the universe is several billion light-years in diameter is because light used to be faster. Given that the speed of light in an ideal vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s, how would I calculate what the "original" speed of light must have been according to YECs, or better yet, the rate of light's slowing down to fit this? ENorman 08:56, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, your mistake there is assuming that YECs would calculate it at all. As per Goddidit, YECs believe that God could speed up & slow down the speed of light at will, or just create the illusion of far-away stars that appear to be millions of years old if He wanted to. Trying to find a stable speed of light in a fictitious YEC version of the past seems like a pointless waste of math of physics. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:14, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm aware of how much of a waste of time it is, but I'm that bored. ENorman 09:16, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Don't forget to calculate the change in star output; after all, a change is c will corespondingly change the e in e=mc2. Have fun. Z3rotalk 09:54, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Having recalled that I got a C- in Physics, my mood has suddenly changed. ENorman 12:32, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
assuming a constant speed of light at todays rate thats C x 6000 years = X the distance light has travelled since God created man (give or take a few years) then subtract that X from your preferred size of the entire universe , SOU - X = Y , then divide Y buy a time you like for creation (a couple of days and up) to give you a fastest speed for light during that period. If you want a constant slowing rate you need to find an average over the time frame, which makes the fastest speed even bigger. Dont worry about e=mc2 cause God wouldnt let that happen , it would make his job much harder.  :) Hamster 12:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
"YECs believe that God could ... create the illusion of far-away stars that appear to be millions of years old if He wanted to." When a similar idea was proposed by Philip Henry Gosse, Gosse was roundly shouted down for calling God a liar. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 13:13, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I wonder if that's why Andy's so down on relativity. Einstein maliciously created the theory in order to mess up those nice, neat YEC calculations. If it wasn't for him (and his dog!), God could have sped up and slowed down light to his heart's content without having to worry about anything. --Kels 13:31, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

What's more bizarre is to think of some of the implications. I mean green wouldn't be green if c changed. And photosynthesis wouldn't work. And most quantum mechanics. "Details" Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:49, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I think the most profound effect of vastly increasing the speed of light to "solve" the starlight problem is that this vastly increases the amount of energy released in a fusion reaction, thus making stars much, much hotter and ensuring they no longer radiate in the visible spectrum. Way to go, young earthers. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:49, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Information transmitted by photons (in particular - though gravitational waves also travel at C, but they are not force carriers of things we deal with ) would be different. This includes the electromagnetic force which holds electrons to protons. This would in turn change the strength of atomic bonds (if I remember correctly, a faster speed of light means that atoms would be larger and hold on to electrons more loosely, though I could have either part of that backwards). The fundamental physics constant of the Coulomb force constant is written as 8.987... * 10^9 N * m^2 * C ^-2. So I think I got that right (with C = 3, it is 1/9, with C = 4, it is 1/16 so the force would be weaker). It would also mean you wouldn't get as much energy breaking bonds (like those in glucose for metabolization). This also messes with things like fire, the rate of chemical reactions, and even how stable compounds are. The Uncertainty Principal also gets fiddled with if you change the speed of light, which in turn changes other things that I am uncertain of. Stephen Baxter has a short story in Vacuum Diagrams titled The Quagma Datum that goes into this a tad. --Shagie 23:57, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Something not cat related[edit]

So, can we talk about something that's not related to Mei and CUR arguing about cats? What'd every one think of Watchmen? What about Jon Stewart versus Cramer? What new changes do you think will come from lifting the stem cell ban? Anything, please, that's not cat related. Z3rotalk 15:55, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Watchmen? From what I've seen by commericials, it's pretty good. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 15:56, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) Watchmen -> Too fucking violent. Invisotext: The part where they saw off that guy's arms is still haunting me. --  Nx/talk  16:00, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
You don't watch enough horror movies. Sawing off a guys arms is nothing. Z3rotalk 16:03, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Watchmen was ok. Rorschach was awesome. Some bits were shit. Didn't like to much of the change from the comic.DSFARGEG 16:04, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I thought Watchmen SUCKED!!! The pacing was horrible, and they couldn't decide whether they wanted to be Sin City (stylized episodes) or 300 (CG and one coherent plot) The only good thing about Watchmen is it answers the question what does a Smurf's dick look like. SirChuckBThat is all 17:12, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
So that's what dick meant. I feel quite stupid now. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:24, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Really, you thought the pacing was bad? It was all flash-backs and charecter development, what kind of pacing would you have liked? Z3rotalk 17:22, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
The flashbacks were actually decently paced, it was the rest of the movie that suffered... It would get going a little and then just die. SirChuckBThat is all 17:58, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Being the over-obsessive fanboy that I am, I went to see 'Watchmen' with anticipation and glee. When I got out of the theatre, I wasn't very disappointed. They followed the comic faithfully through most of the movie, the larger changes becoming apparent as it drew to a close. The fight scenes were a bit 'too' graphic for what Moore and Gibbons envisioned, but that's a minor for a person who has been looking forward to the movie since it was announced...when? Nearly a decade ago, two? I forget when it was first announced, but it'd beaten Duke Nukem Forever's spot as vaporware king until Warner picked up the tab. User:CodyH 07:14 12 March 2009 (CST)

I wrote this article on tax havens earlier. It's pretty topical, but it doesn't have any superheroes in it. Unless you count Obama. & Gordon Brown (snigger). No cats either. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:08, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Interesting description, but what do you propose we do about tax havens? It'd be pretty tough to shut them all down, as some (like Leichtenstein) are well beyond our control. Z3rotalk 16:19, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
We can always do what we did with Iraq... Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:37, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I do like regime changes. Z3rotalk 16:41, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
As I understand it, we can't shut down tax havens, but other governments can crack down on the level of secrecy surrounding their own citizens' finances being routed offshore, & hence claim tax on the moneys/assets being transferred into offshore trusts & accounts, even if they're still not taxed in the havens themselves. I think this is the gist of what the Obama administration is now putting up. The British government could probably do a lot about tax havens, since several of the Caribbean tax havens are closely tied to Britain. Whether Brown has the balls to follow through on that remains to be seen. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:33, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Bet he doesn't - one third of Britain's economy is the financial sector, so they call the shots really. Totnesmartin 17:38, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
"Tax Havens" (I see you don't use the proper naming convention), please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and found liberal opposition to chivalry, so my confidence is over three standard deviations away from the mean that you're an atheistic believer in the fantasy of extraterrestrial life. And you persist in denying the obvious truth that childbirth helps resist language devolution. In sum, only a Muslim would pronounce Pakistan as 'Pokistan'. I know you'll insist, as all liberals do, on last wordism here, but don't misrepresent my position and don't beat a dead horse, or you will be blocked.--aschlafly 15:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

couldn't resist. --<choose> <option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT) I wrote a blurb about "Going Galt", the latest political craziness from the Republicans. --Gulik 16:30, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I thought that said "going goat" for a second... Totnesmartin 16:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

How about this, 2/3 of Britons have lied about what books they have read, according to a recent study. The most cited fib is "1984". and 24% if those interviewed have lied about reading the Bible(4). Any thoughts?[1]--Nate River 20:54, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Really 1984...I can understand lying about reading the entire Bible but why 1984, granted it's a great book (unless I'm a lying British person) but why would you need to lie about it in conversation? User:Ttony21/sig2 21:00, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Really, 1984 is a great book? I think you need to reread it sometime, that book is terrible in just about every way imaginable. Z3rotalk 09:52, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
The idea behind 1984, with the timing of it's release, is what made it 'great'. Writing issues and plot aside. User:CodyH 07:16 12 March 2009 (CST)
Well, here in Ontario it is required reading in high school. Maybe they lied about to their teachers. I, myself, have not read it, as I moved here the year after I would have had to read it. I had to put up with my Eng teacher referencing most of my first semester.--Nate River 21:17, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I think that there's a concept of certain book an educated person should have read. 1984 is one of those. People lie about having read it in order that they appear more educated. As for the bible - what, cover to cover, it goes on for ages and all that Leviticus stuff makes Charlotte Bronte look like a good read. Silver Sloth 08:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Converting[edit]

Is it me or do (almost) all male pop singers look scruffy but (most of) the females look absolutely gorgeous? If we'd had pop videos when I was 15, then I'm fairly sure that I'd have turned dyke a lot earlier. A lot of the videos (Beyonce/Single Ladies!) would have been porn back then though. ToastToastand marmite 16:07, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Hey I'm 15. Spooky. Mei 16:38, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Hey, wanna get in my van? It has candy.DSFARGEG 16:40, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Also, Britney Spears' videos were a bit risque.DSFARGEG 16:41, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
A bit Risque? her tamest video included catholic schoolgirl outfits. SirChuckBThat is all 17:14, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm too lazy to calculate when you were 15, but it hasn't always been that way. Bryan Ferry and Brian Eno come to mind... in fact, most of the stars of "glam" era... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:15, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Also, the pop world doesn't seem to have much room for "unattractive" females - remember Romeo Void, a band with some real promise, sexy songs (Never Say Never), but fronted by a [ahem] overweight, not particularly pretty woman... sank like a stone. Pity, the tunes were good. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:24, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
If I recall Toasts age correctly, she would've been fifteen in the early '60s. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:18, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Scruffy is the new "hot", don'cha know,cause it's all anti-establishment and emo-tive.  ;-) When I was 15, "boy bands" had lots and lots of over coiffed hair.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:35, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
For those of us of a certain age the distaff side seemed split on Donny Osmond/David Cassidy neither of whom were exactly scruffy. Silver Sloth 12:41, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
When I was 15, the... um... I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself. Wisest wisest Hoover! 14:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Recommendation[edit]

Hey everyone, I just wanted to throw this out. I am currently reading Deciding the Next Decider, The 2008 Presidential Race in Rhyme. by Calvin Trillin. I recommend it to anybody who enjoys a good laugh at the political world. A quick sample of the style of the book from the page I happen to be on at the moment. From the chapter "Coming out of Iowa"

The buzz now said that Hillary was through.

For John Mccain such talk was nothing new
In Iowa, his jokes seemed not so funny.
He hadn't even finished in the money.
McCain's campaign again was in a crunch,

Which made the right-wing preachers pleased as punch.

Now if that isn't quality writing, I don't know what is. SirChuckBThat is all 00:45, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Calvin Trillin, a/k/a "the deadline poet" at the Nation magazine. Yes, an excellent person indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:04, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Writing about John McCain in the same meter as Gray's Elegy - ha! Totnesmartin 13:19, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
You should add this to RationalWiki:Recommended Books. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:25, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Help me, I'm melting[edit]

Just took an antihistamine, and my face is sliding down to my knees. who needs drugs when you can just take benidril? (I think my teeth are numb...)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:36, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I had the same feeling, from working on that bloody felidae article. Totnesmartin 13:17, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Ha! I'm on between 15 & 27 (!) pills/day. Some give me the melting sweating, some give me the trots, some give me the jointache.
AND I've got hair growing back everywhere it's so itchy.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 09:37, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, you "win" (in quotes, cause it don't sound much like a win). A friend of mine had long term medical therapy for some illness and said it made all her food taste like metal. Other people I know on some cancer drugs say food loses all flavor, due to the drugs.
As for the hair growing back, I remember the guys on our swim team who shaved before State each year having a hell of a time for a few days. I feel bad for you. itchy sucks.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 10:00, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Not complaining: it's better than the alternative! The taste thing was noticeable while I was on Chemo but has stopped now (bland is rotten). The hair thing: it's those places that are the problem: it looks really rude if you forget yourself & start scratching!   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 10:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Did you know ...[edit]

... that elephants can't jump?   .  So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos 12:54, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

which, all things considered, is probably a very Good Thing (TM). The one that gets me is the fact that a duck's quack doesn't echo. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:12, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Actually Psy, they tested that on MythBusters and found that it does, it's just the echo is very close to the original sound.... Or something like that.... And Elephants can't jump, but they can fly. SirChuckBThat is all 13:15, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Whut! Say it ain't so! Another cherished childhood memory crashes and burns. At least I still have the Tooth Fairy to fall back on. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:18, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Flying elephants and Tooth Fairies are great and all, but I am most impressed that bumblebees CAN'T FLY. The Foxhole Atheist 13:25, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I bet this one can't jump. Totnesmartin 13:32, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I depends on how you define jumping. An elephant can do a little "pounce" thing, but it's not a true jump, as in straight up. This an other zookeeping facts brought to you courteousy my lovely wife. Z3rotalk 14:18, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
please tell me they can still climb trees and jump on unexpecting natives ! this kills some of my oldest childhood jokes :( 67.72.98.45 14:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Maybe the little ones can. Z3rotalk 14:31, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Hey elephant jokes! "How does an Elephant get into an oak tree?" Anybody know the answer? --Bobbing up 07:33, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Sat on an acorn and waited; seriously we not going to trot out old jokes like that are we? - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 07:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, it just came back flying to me. So I won't ask "How does an elephant get out of an oak tree?"--Bobbing up 07:55, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, come on! Isn't that what the Saloon Bar's for? Moer silly facts and riddles for 6 year olds please.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 08:53, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
CUR will be so pleased! Wisest wisest Hoover! 12:59, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Scheisse! You found the flaw in my argument!   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 13:05, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

This should cause massive coronaries in the anti-gay movement[edit]

"Iron Chef" Cat Cora and her wife are both pregnant. Cat is carrying a baby conceived from her wife Jennifer's egg, Jennifer is carrying a baby conceived when they both donated eggs, and the same anonymous sperm donor is the father of both babies, plus their two older sons.

I think they should get the Chairman to record video birth announcements: (whoosh) It's a.... Boooooooooy!

However, I could do without Alton Brown and Kevin Brauch doing a slow-motion instant replay of the birth.

For what its worth, I have a serious case of the hots for Alton Brown.

MDB 07:32, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Deleted pages[edit]

It just occurred to me: there must be a whole load of isolated talk pages liggin about where the article page has been deleted. Is there any way of seeing all of them?   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 10:29, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Short of going through the deletion log and finding the equivalent talk pages, no. I've had half a mind to hunt them all down and categorize them ("talk pages of deleted articles" and/or "deletion discussions"), but I haven't because a certain someone (you know who you are) would've bitched that I was "making sitewide changes without discussion". Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:58, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I think they all have odd namespace numbers one higher than their respective article pages. Is there any code type person who could find all such pages without a corresponding article page? Some will be talk pages of redirected pages, i suppose.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 12:09, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) Before you do that, it's possible to do it automatically. This returns an xml file of all pages in the talk namespace (limited to 500 titles, 5000 for sysops, so you'd need several querys, e.g. continue with this), this is what you get when a page is missing (note the missing="" key, which is absent when a page exists). --  Nx/talk  12:20, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
If I understood word one of that, it'd be great. (?) Toast is stoopid?   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 12:26, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
edit summary and first sentence contains everything that's important, the rest is just note to self so I don't forget how to do it. :) --  Nx/talk  12:28, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
(edit conflict) I didn't understand a word of that either. By the way, I just categorized the easy ones (i.e. the ones in my watchlist). (What's odd is that I would've sworn I had a whole lot more watchlisted. Maybe after a half dozen, it starts to feel like a lot?) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:30, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Before I forget to mention it, the relevant category is Talk pages for deleted articles. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:32, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Where are we going with this? Should we delete the talks of deleted pages? I think that would actually be a good idea in most cases, but it might be controversial re our policy of never deleting any talk pages. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:43, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Where on earth did you get that idea? As far as I know, we're merely trying to track them down—there're so many scattered about we can't easily find them. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:47, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
OK then, track them down for what purpose? Find them easily for what? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
It's the principle, Weaseloid. The same principle behind all our categories—should you feel so inclined, wouldn't it be nice to be able to find them all at the click of a button? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:57, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) Unconvincing. If I wanted to find a specific deleted page & its talk, I would use the regular search. I can't think of any situation when I - or anybody else - would want to look at a whole bunch of talk pages from deleted articles. If you really want to track these down & round them up, or make a bot to do so, then go ahead, but if you're going to propose that every time we delete a page we also have to file the talk page in this category, then I object, on the grounds that it would be pointless timewasting paperwork. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:10, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
The value you place on your time and efforts is your business, but I do not think it fair to use that as a basis for judging other people's time and efforts. I (and hopefully others) have the time, I (and hopefully others) have the will, and unless you can claim that the effort would be somehow harmful to the wiki, there is no reason not to do it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Needs some work, but using the method outlined by Nx - these are the 172 I found (only Mainspace articles so far) Orphaned Talk Pages Worm (t | c) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Homosexuality causes extinction[edit]

Srsly. I fail to see the problem however, they say that these animals face extinction in the UK... so why don't they just go to New Zealand and get some more? Pushing the matter of extinction to one side however, I wish these queer quackers all the very best and hope they share many happy moments. Let's all raise our glasses in toast of Ben and Jerry. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 11:40, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

And I thought they just made delicious ice cream... Way to go Vermont! The Foxhole Atheist 11:47, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia's "Obama whitewash"[edit]

This might be an issue on Wikipedia, or it might just be an issue with me not having adjusted to Wikipedia. I would like some opinions.

When I saw the Conservapedia newsbite about the "Obama whitewash" I went over to Wikipedia to check out the claims. That there was no pointed mention at all of Rev. Wright or Prof. Ayers in the biography was surprising, especially since the Wright controversy caused Obama to give his "A More Perfect Union" speech, which might have won him the election.

So, I checked out the article's talk-page, and apparently the consensus was that mentions of these issues belonged in the campaign articles rather than the biography, which seemed reasonable. So, in that spirit, I went and made a fairly minor edit to the campaign article. The part mentioning Ayers was promptly reverted. After going around a bit on the talk-page, I added this, which was also reverted.

I am of the opinion that the latter reversion was made on entirely phony grounds, especially after I pulled a Mr. Schlafly and checked out the contributions of the fellow who made it: he does very little, it seems, but revert edits to Obama-related articles, on the basis of which he has been threatened with the banhammer a few times.

So, am I being reasonable here, or am I just having difficulty adjusting to Wikipedia? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 12:18, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I do not think you are being reasonable, no. YOu are expecting a wiwk with millions of users to be able to prevent vandals (of the additive and the "delete"itive sense) from messing with very very high profile articles. I do not think it says anything about the editors at large, but it does say something about the vandals (of both types). And I have no idea why ayers or wright would be included in an article about a President - they were both flashes in time.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:31, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Yet I would say the are notable flashes. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, but there are entire pages on wiki *devoted* to the controversy with Ayers/Obama, and Wright/Obama, both linked from the main page. What am I missing? What are you all (or listener, in particular) upset with. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
There are? In that case, they don't need more than a link from the Obama article. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:40, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC)(EC) To be clear, my issue is mostly with the grounds used to justify the last reversion, that "the Ayers controversy has everything to do with the McCain campaign and nothing to do with the Obama campaign." I also think that the Wright and Ayers controversies were important in the campaign even if they do not rate a mention in the biography. (A "link from the Obama article" was, essentially, what I ended up adding.) Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 12:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Also, before my edit, as far as I could tell there was not any link from either the Obama biography or the campaign page to the page about the Ayers controversy. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 12:44, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, I missed that you added the links. I think, given time, these things generally work themselves out, but as you noted, almost the instant you put one thing up, some self-appointed watch dog ran in and changed them. That's one of the troubles with such high profile topics. I do see why Ayers would be the McCain campaign, since it was a fabrication and exaggeration of *nothing* of any substance, and hyped by both palin and mccain. I don't think that it's appropriate to litter a page of a busy article with things made up by someone else merely to slander that person.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:50, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
That might be true of the biography page, but not of the campaign page, since this was undeniably an issue in the campaign. On the talk-page I provided some examples of similar sections and mentions of controversies on the pages for the Clinton, Bush and Kerry campaigns, but to date everyone has ignored these. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 13:03, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
OH, i agree on the campaign page, at the very least as links, but with a short line or two. People who want to refute it (or are ignorant and want to claim obama hangs with terrorists) would likely not even remember the guy's name, so they go to the Obama page, and expect to see it there. (campaign page, anyhow). "yeah, that Ayers guy, that's teh dude". That's how people use a wiki, to cross reference things they know with what they want to find out. "there's this actress i love, and she was in Malcom in the Middle, but i don't know her name..." "I wonder if EEyore was voiced by anyone famous". So the link is very appropriate, and the removal, like you suggest, more spam/vandalism than encyclopedic anything.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 13:18, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Listener, you will have to realise that there are some select pages on wikipedia that are more-or-less controlled by a handful of editors. I'll put it this way: You know the edit wars on the felidae article here? Now imagine a hundred or more CURs all protecting their own articles, inserting their own POV and manipulating site rules and guidelines to make sure nothing they don't like gets put into those articles by any editor. DSFARGEG 19:21, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I am not at all in doubt that this fellow has an axe to grind; I am only wondering (being unfamiliar with Wikipedia's customs in such matters) if he slipped up and used bogus reasons to do it, or if he managed to be reasonable. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:45, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
I suspect the "pushing" comes from both sides - there are probably some people who want every article that ever mentions Obama to, say, also mention Ayers. There are probably some who wish there were no way to follow wikilinks to navigate between the two. And then there is the result, I guess, where there's an article, and some appropriate links to it from likely places. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:58, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

This is why I stay away from political articles there. Totnesmartin 12:03, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Trouble is that, especially for teh Murcans, so much comes in to politics: Religion, Science & Education to name but two (damn that public school education).   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 09:07, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
this is why I mainly stick to Devon villages, small sea creatures and, er, neopaganism - that last one is carefully watched, and the subarticles don't attract attention. Totnesmartin 10:15, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
The regular contributors may have had endless discussions, psuedo-votes, arbitration etc to come up with the article. If they don't know you, any change that isn't really minor may get reverted quick. Teabag 20:43, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Some more thoughts on a post-Conservapedia Rationalwiki...[edit]

What about expanding our foray into the paranormal as well?

I am particularly irked at the Ghosthunters, but even moreso at the unholy Paranormal State - Lorraine Warren - Chip Coffey triumvirate of wackaloonery. It has to be the most blatant Oprah-style moneymaking pyramid since Dr. Phil if I ever saw one (besides the Montel Williams - Sylvia Browne connection, that is). Warren "investigated" the Amityville claims, and lends her "expertise" on demonology to Paranormal State. Coffey wrote the book for A Haunting in Connecticut (which Warren "investigated" too, BTW), as well as using his "psychic talents" on Paranormal State and in his crappy Psychic Kids show.

The crux of the matter is that these shows are essentially strip-mining the woo industry, but unlike say, mineral deposits, there's never an end to the resource. They get pimped to daytime TV when they aren't clogging up the primetime slots themselves. Their books and movies get touted and all they do is cite EACH OTHER for verification of claims. They prey upon the gullible as badly as religion does and when someone calls them on their shit, they simply claim "Entertainment purposes only!" even though they know people around the globe are buying in hook, line and sinker.

God damn... That's enough for now. Perhaps I can constructively focus my rage later, just not right now.

What say you all? The Foxhole Atheist 11:52, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

we have a few paranormal articles but they're all a bit weedy. you're right that most pranrmal books and programmes cite each other, which is why the same old tripe keeps going round, even if it was debunked years ago. But debunking is less entertaining than mystery. I like reading about the paranormal but the huge masses of sloppy writing drive me up the wall. Totnesmartin 12:00, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
What we really need is something that is self-renewing, but that we can comment on in real time. That's what makes CP so ammusing, because we can comment as it happens. That's what we need. Z3rotalk 12:06, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
True. I suppose I could do some more hunting into the source material for Fundies Say The Darndest Things. Granted, there aren't any minute-by-minute Wiki style places like Conservapedia (that I know of), but some blogs, like Ray Comfort's, are updated daily. There's always creation.com and their kind, too. They get updated a few times a day, and provide no end in sight for side-by-side material... Just thinking. The Foxhole Atheist 12:20, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
World nut daily is an obvious candidate. We need to start looking away from CP fairly soon, judging by its current state. Totnesmartin 12:25, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
WND is ripe! but i'd never go there. I can't even see it as the "humor" it is, since it's actually quite "powerful" with "them folk". I get too freaked at the out right calls for violence against judges, lawmakers, and now a president. srsly.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:33, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
I like some of these paranormal shows, but most of them only to laugh at how stupid they are. MonsterQuest I find more scientific then most: they have concluded multiple times that there was a non-cryptid explanation. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:29, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

I think the issue would be less about finding a "replacement" for CP and more about weening members and potential members off CP and onto article writing, research and other sites. Though I do agree that having a focus that regularly updates is essential for keeping people coming here and contributing, 'tis good for "morale" for lack of a better term. ArmondikoVpathetic 20:54, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Paranormal is cool. Maybe we could look at the pseudoscience of ghost hunting?--Nate River 21:06, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Whoa don't fuck with ghosts. They outnumber us. Seriously. Mei is useful 21:39, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah, but once we die, us "new ghosts" will outnumber the old crowd. Exponential growth is a bitch. Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:49, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Exactly - there will be more rational, atheist and anti-woo ghosts! Totnesmartin 09:41, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah! but what if you only become a ghost if you believe in ghosts?   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 09:45, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
and what if you only becomeone if you don't? :) Totnesmartin 10:12, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Comic Relief[edit]

Is anyone else watching it? Wisest wisest Hoover! 18:02, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

No.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:08, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Indeederooni. Worm (t | c) 18:09, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
In the background. Wisest wisest Hoover! 18:10, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Completely forgot about it. I think the only thing I've seen of it this year was the Two Pints special, which was... special, to say the least. ArmondikoVpathetic 20:56, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Gentlemen at a Liberal Website...[edit]

Operation: De-Rougificationishism is in full effect.

Just one question of etiquette. What do I do with redlinks that are on individual user and user special pages? Can I nuke them if they look like they'll never actually be written? Can I re-direct to WP if I think that the information SHOULD be there but it'd be a waste of time to re-write in original content? Is it just plain old hands off because they're on user and user special pages?

Thanks. The Foxhole Atheist 18:25, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Don't redirect them to WP. If possible, point them to a real RW article. If they might be on-mission articles when written, leave the red link. If they aren't, use the "r" template or just remove the brackets. Are you just trying to reduce the number of "wanted pages"? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:47, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC)I think it depends on the situation. Editing talk pages is fine, it's just so long as no information is removed and removing [[ and ]] hardly counts as information. A few articles have been copied from CP, so in those cases, redlinks (and really, all links) should change to cp redirects. But most of the time they're in old talk page archives so I don't see anything wrong with getting rid of them completely. ArmondikoVpathetic 20:50, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, both messages received. I am trying to reduce the number of wanted pages. I was just wondering what the rules were for those areas. I know we are supposed to stick with the SPOV, but I am not clever enough to write anything for, say, the Detroit redlink, because even though I am from there, I haven't lived there in 5 years. I guess I could make a Kwamee Kilpatrick joke, or something, but I'd rather leave that to the pros. In the meantime, I should just use my Army Non-Commissioned Officer skills as a taskman and just clean house. The Foxhole Atheist 21:07, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
yes, if you can't write a good article, either dered or perhaps suggest it to someone. I'm sure you could write a good basic article about Detroit, and it might even be better than, say, Oxford! Totnesmartin 09:44, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

We Surround Them[edit]

So. Has anyone else been surrounded by Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris yet this evening? Secret Squirrel 21:26, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

What are you on about? Is there a convention of Fearmongers and Guys Who Got Their Ass Kicked by Bruce Lee?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:41, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Glenn Beck had some kind of event yesterday called "We Surround Them", where he set forth "9 principles" and "12 values" that every good American citizen should believe in. They are things like "America is good", "I believe in God". The implication is if you believe in them you are a bulwark against Obama enacting socialist policies. Creepy name, it is supposed to mean "We, the people" surround the politicians and they cannot do anything without our consent, but it has obvious red state/blue state overtones (you liberals are surrounded by we conservatives, who are all around you, etc.) and sounds suspiciously spiritual warfare-ish. There were supposed to be viewing parties around the U.S. I didn't bother to tune in to find out any further. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018/ Chuck Norris is a big booster of this and went haywire the other day declaring himself president of Texas, or something. Secret Squirrel 08:55, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I assumed this had something to do with Chuck Norris' announcement that he was running for president of Texas. Z3rotalk 09:29, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
This is perfect for a side by side. To the sandbox, Robin! CorryIt's an illusion, Michael! 11:13, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Let me know if you need any help on the side by side; I just read the list and it's hilarious. Z3rotalk 11:21, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I would love some help. I have a very rough start, and I have to go study now, so please hijack it and put it in the mainspace, by all means. [2] CorryIt's an illusion, Michael! 11:36, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I added a little. I'm no expert on putting anything in the side by side template, so someone more experienced can do that. Secret Squirrel 11:45, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
There's also the idea of (red) rural areas surrounding (blue) cities - is Chuck Norris using a Maoist strategy? Totnesmartin 11:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
If he was president, Chuck Norris would eliminate the DOD and replace it with his feet and fists. CorryIt's an illusion, Michael! 12:09, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Either way, it sounds fucking scary... ArmondikoVpathetic 11:47, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
"If you agree with at least seven of those principles, then you are not alone" What if it's the first two (1. America is good. 2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.) you disagree with?   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 13:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
It's at We Surround Them now, by the way. And it's nutso, so let's have fun. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:02, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Hijacked WP articles[edit]

I've noticed that many articles on Wikipedia have been hijacked to show a point of view, like wp:Esther Hicks and wp:Morphic field. Could we make a list of articles that have been hijacked by proponents of woo and such here? Wisest wisest Hoover! 11:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Possible, but it's a shifting target. If an article's being sat on, perhaps just report it to their own rfc & arbcom processes? Totnesmartin 11:21, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, WP is never going to be perfect so we may as well keep tabs on anything we notice and try to correct any info. If that doesn't work because someone in power has their axe to grind, we can make an RW article and point out that the WP equiverlent is less than stella. ArmondikoVpathetic 11:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
not so much "in power" as "they care more than you" - an article in dispute will stick at the version favoured by whoever doesn't give up on it, which means sadly that axe-grinders and true believers usually win. I was reading recently about an article that is this close to "Good article" status, but nobody at its wikiproject wants to work on it, because of a single tendentious editor. Totnesmartin 12:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Yuck, that Esther Hicks article took a huge amount of effort just to get it to the point it is at. Had to get half a dozen editors banned from wikipedia in the proccess. tmtoulouse 13:34, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I despair of humanity, which is my default reaction to everything annoying. Wisest wisest Hoover! 14:07, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Speaking of WP, looks like User #188 is still being a moron. You know, the more he does that "I copy/pasted some POV garbage nobody wants, but please find sources for me instead of deleting it like the rules require" thing over there, the more I think his actions at CP are genuine, rather than trolling. He really is that much of an idiot. --Kels 13:06, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

There's a bit of RW v U188 baiting going on over there, methinks.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 13:13, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
It seems to be that the biggest problem is not so much maliciousness as laziness! Sometimes you just have to put in some old fashioned work and perhaps do something yourself. But of course, some people will never figure that out. ArmondikoVpathetic 13:15, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Back to the original topic, perhaps we need a different "WP" linkbox ("wpbias"?), that reads "For those interested, there is a less factual, more biased, article at wikipedia on XXX" to put on our article(s) on the topic? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:49, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Deleting pages[edit]

I'm sure this has been covered, but I don't get a chance to read what I should... but I went to delete a page and there is a new warning that deleting removes it from the data base permanently? I didn't think deleting was that serious. and, part 2 of this question, what should we do with pages we think should be "deleted" now.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 13:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

That bit's always beeen there. It's the 'zillions of revisions' bit that's new.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 14:02, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) Not permanently, it's just that you can't restore it through the wiki interface if it has a lot of edits. It's a warning I added after a n00b sysop (or possibly a vandal) deleted WIGO CP. We've already had a similar incident when TheoryOfPractice deleted another page with a large number of revisions to remove personal information. --  Nx/talk  14:03, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
So, for the janitors, removing something with less than 10 edits is a very safe "ok"? I know so little about your side of things, that I want to make sure i'm "bettering' and not "worsening" things here.  :D--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 14:07, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
The number of edits can be quite large, as was evidenced when I deleted Ken's article to get rid of a couple of unwanted revisions. Wisest wisest Hoover! 14:09, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, cause i figure that if it's got "lots" of edits, i wouldn't be deleting it arbitrarily, anyhow. Generally I only feel save when it's one or two people, who write something idiotic.  :D Otherwise, i wait till mob rule happens. And usually someone more 'awares' does the deletions. (avoid responsibility at all cost, i say. That's why i'm a fri chef at micky D's.)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 14:12, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) The warning is intended at n00b sysops mostly, who think it would be "fun" to delete the most viewed page on RW. As Phantom Hoover says, large means LARGE, so unless it's Talk:Main Page or WIGO CP or something like that, you'll be fine. And if you screw up, I can fix it now. In fact, the warning can go away if you don't like it, it's here (delete the page to restore default text) --  Nx/talk  14:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Personally, I think the warning is good for a different reason. it makes people say "hum, there are a lot of edits here, should i *really* be deleting without discussing?" It's kinda a back door way to keep people pensive. Sorta the way you are told to yell "fire" and not "rape" or "mugging" cause more people will help in a fire... dumb, but effective.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 14:22, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Good point, but TOP deleted WIGO CP talk because of personal information. He intended to restore it without that one revision, but he didn't know it would bork the wiki. So he did the right thing actually. Of course since we have the show/hide thingie, that isn't a likely scenario any more. --  Nx/talk  15:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
AS a Hypothetical Question, if there were Consensus to delete the Offensive Essay such as Essay:Why religion is bullshit, would that cause a Big Problem?--Tolerance 15:43, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
If by problem you mean technical problem: WIGO CP had 11333 edits, and I managed to restore that. That essay doesn't even have 50. --  Nx/talk  15:45, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I've expanded the crude code I used to restore WIGO CP into a proper userscript, which can be found here --  Nx/talk  18:15, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Totally nothing to do with anything[edit]

How much area does a zip code cover? In say a fairly dense city.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 14:23, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't matter - Sussed it.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 14:31, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Moar nothing to do with anything: What happened to your sig? I see only white space where there used to be a vision of cheesy toasty goodness.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 15:26, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I like the occasional change :) (and there's a nice full stop or period there)   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 15:34, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Toast, just an FYI, in the US, most 5 digit codes represent about 50,00 - 100,000 households or businesses. if the mail system gets more than that number, they shift to a new zip, for ease of mail.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 15:37, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I know wew've only a quarter of the people, but in the UK a post code narrows down to about 30 to 50 addresses max, some have only 5 addresses. My old one was S8 8QE which was rather large, having 40 addresses following the construction of a small apartment complex.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 16:41, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
That 50,000 to 100,000 seems high to me. I live in a city of little more than 50,000 and we have several zip codes. I've lived in 3 different ones, not more than 2 or 3 miles apart. I think it really depends on the area and population density. DickTurpis 17:15, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
ZIP codes are usually set up (these days at least) to allow for future growth in population. Some are also close to being "vanity" ZIP codes - like mine - a village of a about 5000, served entirely by another post office whose ZIP code is big enough for both towns, but we got our own, finally ;). Further to the point, the system is now a nine digit code - "ZIP+4", where each code is, I believe, one delivery location (so one large building might have many ZIP+4s). Also, on a more pedantic note, "ZIP" is in all caps, and "ZIP Code" is a registered trademark thingie of the USPS. The +4 part also shows that a given ZIP Code will contain a maximum of 10,000 delivery addresses. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:12, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Zip codes are set up with regards to mail traffic, not population. I used to work for a bank, and across the parking lot was a small building that processed our credit card payments. The building had enough mail that it had its own zip code, despite being only about 5,000 square feet. Z3rotalk 22:49, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

You liberals are clueless. Jesus invented ZIP codes as one of the first jokes. Loveless, humourless liberals have since tried to ruin this example of Christian good humor by adding the burdensome and complicated plus four nonsense, but we aren't fooled. Open your minds and you will see that nearly all postal careers end in violence. Admit that If more people carried guns the cost of postage would not be so high or lose more credibility. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 17:00, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

An Offside, to pimp an amazing album[edit]

If you are at all into French Pop, make sure you check out wp:Pascal_Obispo's Fleur du Bien. It's got some killer songs that send me into musical ecstasy when i'm editing/reading. Noir & Rosa are two songs in particular that are uber daunting (strange word to use, I know, but it's how I feel, like I can't *quite* gel with them).--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 15:51, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Ha! Hee! Ho! Ha! Hee! Ho! Ha! Hee! Ho! Ha! Hee! Ho! FRENCH! POP!   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 16:01, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Nice, that'll go nicely with the French comics (Spirou, thanks for asking) I've been reading and studying lately. --Kels 16:19, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Hubby grew up on Bande dessignee but I have to say, I don't get it. He's a tintin fan, too. Me, I have read my share of Asterix, but not sure i'd do it for fun. And toast, tisk tisk tisk, what you are missing ;-) --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 16:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I have an abiding love for Asterix, although I need translations to get all the wordplay. Tintin's a bit too much on the simplistic side. But Spirou, that hits the spot for me. Way better art, and the stories have a lot more action and humour, all at once. Story aside, I really want to pick up a lot of what makes the style so appealing to me. --Kels 16:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Asterix? It's been a long time since I've heard them mentioned. Truly an amazing album, but you have to have been into that obscure German prog rock to know....wait, wrong Asterix altogether ;) Secret Squirrel 18:15, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
These squirrels are crazy. --Kels 21:08, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I've heard some & ... what's the word? ... Oh, Yes ... Bland.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 16:47, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Heh. hum, guess it depends on who you like. I tend to find much everything past the 1990s to be non-musical bland crap, no matter what the language. I'm stuck in a time warp, I guess.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 16:53, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I was a Stones fan in the 60s & have been fairly selective since. There's about one a year that I think's worth remembering. incidentally; someone here mentioned The Osmonds the other day & now i can't get "long Haired Lover from Liverpool" out of my head. Damnit.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 16:59, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
"Okkkaahhh, well see that explains it. you grew up with REAL music, Late 60's and early to mid 70s. (including the best and French ever, Brel and ginsburg) where song writing was art, and performance double art. I had, on the other hand, Duran Duran, Men without hats, and madonna. Therefore, having lived 1980s hell, French pop is a serious set up!.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 17:04, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Heh, i've been getting into ye-ye (sixties French pop) in the last couple of weeks. Great stuff. Totnesmartin 18:35, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I dig wp:Pierre Henry, as far as classic Gaullic art-pop goes. And there are a few Quebecois artists I like. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 23:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
He did futurama. how bad can it be. :-) --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 23:46, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Interesting survey on progressivism[edit]

Anyone see this questionnaire here: [3]? I found it interesting. Scored above 260 out of 400, which is pretty high apparently, though I forsee some much higher scores from users here. DickTurpis 16:14, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Not qualified to do it but 336. (I put 5 for those on which I have no idea)   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 16:26, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
335. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:27, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

343, but I'm Canadian. --Kels 16:34, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
307, But I found the test itself kinda flawed. SirChuckBThat is all 16:44, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I thought the scale was unclear. When you judge agreement on something from 0 to 10, is a 5 a neutral score or 50% agreement? If you largely disagree with something, does putting a 2 or 3 show disagreement for being on the disagree side of the middle, or does it how that you still agree 20 or 30%? I took it twice, with different interpretation of what the numbers mean, but my core didn't change much. DickTurpis 17:11, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I took it a few days ago. 212. The site says this means I am a "progressive". These political tests are all flawed though. Nolanchart.com has me on the border of centrist and conservative, the Libertarians' "World's Smallest Political Quiz" has me on the border of liberal and libertarian. Secret Squirrel 16:49, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
364, but I'm Canadian, too. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 16:51, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
349/400. I had to "5" the two economic questions, cause really, I just don't know what makes economics run.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 16:51, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
286. I'm surprised I'm that far above all the groups they tested for comparison though. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 17:04, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
333. Not bad for a Soviet Canuckistani. I also found the test somewhat flawed, and some of the questions ambiguous.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 17:19, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure of their methodology. Does not being a fan of free trade count in favor of being progressive, or against it? I don't know. And either way, on what basis do they get to say their position is the progressive one? Secret Squirrel 17:44, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
The free-trade question is really ambiguous. Do they mean free-trade, or do they mean the agreements such as NAFTA that are sold as "free-trade" but have nothing to do with free trade in practise.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 18:05, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Interesting how they put regulating sex and violence in media in one question... btw, I'm trying to take it, but it borked at Q5 and won't continue. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:19, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Second time's a charm. 366. Hah! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

(UI) Also, I agree with SS. The Nolan chart and the WSPQ are both rigged to make everyone think they are a Libertarian, and this particular quiz, IMO, gave short shrift to some, or many, conservative positions - ie, nothing on guns?! And the only "abortion" related question was the "from conception" one, allowing for no real subtlety in gauging people's positions. Ditto the free trade question, it is too unclear, again. But, hey, they tried, I guess. Oh, and SS, 200 or so might be "progressive" for an American, but it's probably centrist or slightly right of center in the ROW. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:28, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, but since this is a progressive group, I would suppose they count anything over 200/400 as "progressive". Same thing with the WSPQ: far too many people come out "libertarian" on it. These quizzes are, in part, a recruiting tool for people to identify with whatever label they want to promote. Secret Squirrel 18:31, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Exactly. Where were the questions about teh hunting and teh fishing and teh plentiful acorns? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

343 here. Totnesmartin 18:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

280 here. Probably 'cause I'm wishy-washing about things.... Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:35, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
325/400. I always stuck to the extremes most time though, and second-guessed myself on a few. ENorman 20:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Re-took it, stayed away from the extremes, got 300/400 ENorman 20:48, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Progessivismsurvey.jpg

This test has to be flawed. It gave me 372, and there is no way that a borderline facist, gun proliferationist like me is more "progressive" than 99% of the people on this site. It's very vague, and the numbering is rather ambiguous. My score may have been skewed by the lack of gun questions, or the (relative) lack of military questions. Interesting, though. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 21:19, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, it can't be right that someone outscored me ;) Pleez to retake and rethink :) ħumanUser talk:Human 22:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I think that like the Libertarian quiz that tries to convince everybody they are libertarian, this one tries to convince everyone they are Progressive/Liberal. I still say that Political Compass is the most neutral of them all, simply because I can land in Conservative/Authoritarian without coming off as a Facist. ENorman 21:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
346. DogP 22:47, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't know what a "Facist" is (a person biased against ugly people?), but fascism is a political position... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:00, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Took it thrice, 309, 345, 327. I did notice a lack of gun control questions, as well as... *cough*shamelessselfpromoting* a lack of birth control questions. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ Who said anything about fair?! 00:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a bit drunk here, but I gotta say, I'm finding it hilarious that numerous people here have decried this survey as being an inaccurate representation of modern liberalism because it has a dearth of questions on gun control and abortion. A few gripes about classroom prayer and we're within striking distance of a Schlafly. DickTurpis 00:15, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

(hic) s'ok... the point is that some conservative issues are completely ignored or trivialized to extreme versions of them. That's all. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:18, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

It's so cute that people think that a quiz lasting a couple of minutes can give an accurate picture of one's political views. Wisest wisest Hoover! 04:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Are you calling me cute? I thought only Mei thought that, and based on a ten year old picture (or what?), at that. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Mei called you cute? Disturbing... I wasn't addressing that remark to you, anyway. Wisest wisest Hoover! 04:33, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
327 if it really means anything, although I think I abused the number 5. User:Ttony21/sig2 11:27, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
This is to Dick's comments a few lines back. The issue isn't so much that there is a lack of gun control or birth control questions, the problem is there are none. GC and BC are both valid political points, but Assfly takes it to the extreme. A Schlafly political test would simply be a list of questions to which you have to answer yes. If you put no for one of them, the test ends and screams "LIBERAL." SirChuckBThat is all 13:41, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Okay, Human, retook it and got 369. Sorry. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 13:43, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

307 here. That seems low for me. I too found some of the questions wonky. e.g. one seemed to ask if I thought there was ANY misuse of welfare entitlements. Since I do, (any system that mixes money and people is likely to have some corruption) I guess that makes me a fascist. Another asked about the "purpose" of corporations without explaining any of the context. What the hell does that mean? What did god intend when she created corporations?' Thus, I felt pidgeon holed by the phrasing to take some conservative positions when my geniune views where more of a "yes, but . . . " with respect to a given issue. The whole point of progressivism is the reality of nuance. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

I got 145 ("Very Conservative"), which I think is mostly due to the questions on economics. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Explanation request[edit]

The most innocent of questions can arouse the most controversy: Lilly Allen?   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 08:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Is this a word association game because I have a few, "talentless mockney" may be at the top of the list. ArmondikoVpathetic 10:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
I just wondered: what the hell got her anywhere? I think "talentless" is too good for her, actually.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 10:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
A combination MySpace and nepotism, that's what. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 10:33, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
My fiance has her first(?) album. It is pretty good in a poppy silly sort of way. Some of the songs are quite funny. She may not have the talent of a really major act like Brittany Spears or Hannah Montana (for instance) but she has a pleasant voice, a sense of humor, and at least slightly off kilter musical sensibility. That makes her a win in my book, at least compared to the universe of forgettable pap that is contemporary pop music. Not that it bothers me much but I'm curious:Why bash her here? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 15:55, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
You think Britney Spears and Hannah Montana are good? I shun thee. Wisest wisest Hoover! 16:02, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) It's a long story, Sheesh but boils down to: I'm laid up with only t'internet & t'telly to while away the hours. I've not seen any pop for ages until the last week and I'm amazed at some of it. I suppose I'm "doing an Ed" really (live commentary on the TV). I disagree on the 'musical sensibility'. Good thing we don't all like the same things really.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 16:08, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
  1. To Phantom Hoover: I am not a tween. I refuse to use those stupid smiley faces to be understood.
  2. To Toast: Ach. That sucks. I didn't realize you were trapped in a room with Lily Allen! That certainly changes things. I meant "musical sensibility" when compared to any other pop-tart, not serious misicians like Yahni or the Trans Siberian Orchestra. (this is where the smiley would go). I stand by my assessment of her first album as pleasant and amusing. I don't think I've ever seen her on video or anything. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:22, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Speaking of TSO, a group from my uni are wanting to put on a show inspired by them sometime soon. Not sure if it'll work though, trying to get music students to debase themselves that way is quite difficult. I should really like TSO, they tick all the boxes for music I like, but I just don't warm to them very much for some reason. ArmondikoVpathetic 16:26, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Wha... What's this about smilies? Wisest wisest Hoover! 16:29, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Suffice it to say that I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of teen pop, even (perhaps especially) when I was part of the target demographic. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

U2 and the Stone Roses made some decent music as teenagers. Them and Mozart. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
So there are no questions this statement is entirely serious: I'm 22 and I happen to enjoy Britney Spears very much... I also think using terms like "serious musicians" smacks of elitism... The idea that just because someone plays classical music or writes long boring ballads with political undertones they are more serious then someone who simply looks to entertain fans and put on a good show reveals a serious misunderstanding of music. SirChuckBThat is all 18:24, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
As a fully qualified D.O.D. (dirty old dyke) I too like Britney. Hadn't realised she was a into music though.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:33, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Obviously, I was being silly when I used the term "serious music," but I will cop to some elistism (best understood here as a strong personal preference) as far as music is concerned (and books . . . movies too) and a fondness for (ahem) long boring ballads with political under tones. I reserve the right of mockery with respect to Spears. I don't mean any offense but I think it is safe to say I've seen all of her that I care to . . . (cue rim shot) Me!Sheesh!Mine! 18:46, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah, the difficult of recognizing internet sarcasm.... I understand exactly what you mean now... I just get annoyed with that the idea that "classical is always better." Fun fact, my opposition to this idea and my inability to respect authority pretty much got me drummed out of the MSCD Music Department. I have no issue with your personal preference and I've long way away from tearfully screaming "leave Britney alone" I was just fighting against what I took to be your underlying idea. My apoligies for the mistake SirChuckBThat is all 19:24, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
I am an elitist, I have no problem being an elitist. I do have a problem with bubblegum-pop and "hey we just made money lets do it again" music as "serious music". If i can't tell one song from the next, one singer from the next, I think I'm just being sold the next "Idol". Brittney grows up, Hanna takes her place. Can anyone describe what, in terms of lyrical content, musical structure, voice production etc., would distinguish them? There are some good writers who are teens, but as Human said, "not many", and they do tend to transcend the teen market place by growing into adult rolls. On the other hand, Shawn Cassidy (my teen idol), Brittney, the "um-bob" boys (Hansons?), the new "um-Bob" boys and most everyone Disney produces will not live past their few years of pop phase, to grow into mature writers or singers. Just my elitist view. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 12:11, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
So in other words, you're attacking an entire genre of music because you don't like the short attention spans of the audience their aimed at? Say what you want about Spears, but she has been around for over a decade now, and I think that would qualify as a lasting act.... I don't personally listen to Cyrus, so I couldn't tell you what the differences are between the two, as I have no basis for it. The bigger question I would ask is not "If i can't tell one song from the next, one singer from the next, (am I) just being sold the next "Idol," but do you understand the genre itself? There are a lot of traits specific to each genre that needs to be addressed, and if you're not a fan, you won't get it. Myself, I don't enjoy most country music, not because I think it's less serious than others, but simply because I don't understand the appeal of the genre. I would also point out that neither Hanson nor Britney were produced by Disney. SirChuckBThat is all 12:40, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Wait. First of all, while I'm not a fanboi (see above, see above) music by Lily Allen does not equal music by Britney(totally willing to arm wrestle over this). They might share gender and some age based demographic but I'm fairly sure we're talking about two different genres (at least the way I sort them out). Second, wasn't Britney a mouseketeer before she became a trash-ka-teer? (sorry Chuck). Third, I think the fact the Hanson was not a Disney product is the slimmest of technicalities. Finally, while there aren't any hard and fast rules that wouldn't break nearly immediately in a conversation like this, there is the matter of authorial intent, complexity of composition and message and longevity of particular songs we might consider when we're sorting out bad pop music from good serious music. I get that this method is neither objective nor particularly coherent but fuck it, I'm a snobby elitist, what do I care? Oh, and Toast is a trouble maker. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 12:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

(edit conflict. you said it much better than i said it, by the way).  ::::::::::Frankly, I don't consider commercial jingles to be valid musical forms, either. And that's how I see much of pop music. I don't think that most Harlequin Authors are or should be considered "Novelists" in the way I would look at Nabokov or Toni Morrison, and Hallmark poetry is not the same as Poe or Whitman. I do think, and I'll end up sounding like Andy here, but I do think that there is some level of quality we can asses to art. Doesn't mean that watching Big Bang Theory isn't one of my biggest pleasures, I just understand that the quality of art is not the same as watching Neil Simon.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 13:04, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
When you start talking about quality of art, I have to jump in here. Now I'm not Stanley Fish, but saying art has some sort of intrinsic quality is total BS. Art by itself is given value by the audience, nothing else. While somethings are considered "better" than others does not mean they are; they are just considered better. Z3rotalk 13:17, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) But therein lies the problem Godot, you're assigning a value from your personal tastes, which is fine.... But to then assume that the quality you define is somehow correct or true moves you into universal statment. There is no such thing as better or worse art, simply "Art person X likes better." A lot of art I see, even famous pictures (Andy Warhol(sp?)) comes to mind) I can't stand. But that doesn't make it any better or worse, just better or worse in my eyes. To Sheesh, yes, she was a Mouseketeer, but her musical carrer was backed Jive records, owned by Sony. And the Hanson thing is hardly a technicallity. Godot said "most everyone Disney produces will not live past their few years of pop phase" indicating that because they work for Disney, and likely won't become classic artists, they're substandard music, which implies that Hanson was a Disney backed group, which they weren't (which is actually one of the reasons they lost popularity, without the Disney media empire to back them, they couldn't compete). To finish off, who's to say what type of music is "good?" how do we determine that? My point is not to argue that Hanson or Spears or anyone is the greatest artist ever, but simply to point out that there is no such thing as universal "good art" and "bad art" and that we cannot make statements such as "art X is better than art Y" because there are too many variables to account for and too many individual preferences. SirChuckBThat is all 13:18, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

An interesting thought. I have a longstanding love for advertising photography. Obviously, it is more blatantly commercial than the output of Ms. Spears, the Hansons, the young Ms. Montana, and so forth. Is it good art? Bad art? Art at all? What about old Russian propaganda posters? Or to take it another way, what about the difficult to access but dramatically noncommercial work of the Modernist painters? Is Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire art? Some would say it is not. If so, is it good or bad? Clearly, the same principles for judging music should apply to all these, so what's the verdict? --Kels 14:38, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Is there anything in the thought that all art can only be judged by its effect on society and other art as seen with a historical perspective. Is there any point discussing the "art/notArt" of something until we can use hindsight?   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 14:59, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Chuck, this is a pretty baroque method for expressing your love for Britney Spears. Why not just get a belly shirt? I completely agree that this is a muddy topic (see Kels remarks) but saying you can't place an objective value on art is the equivilient of declaring that eggs came first, and about as useful. Why do we have movies reviews? Are there no movies that deserve to be panned? Can you not, by dint of sheer incompetance, make a bad creative product? Is there no such thing as a bad song? Are all one million of those monkeys with typewriters actually a fair substitute for Shakespeare? Why do we call it "up"? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 20:57, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

FYI[edit]

Just a quick note to mention the creation (ID anyone?) of template {{kens}}. Said template keeps the lulz inducing formatting but is the possessive form to alleviate those wishing to note one of  K e n D o l l ' s  acts of self-worship without having to ponderously add the 's to the {{ken}} template rendering it nearly unsightly; thusly:  K e n  D o l l 's.

This will be the LAST imporvment I have scheduled for 2009 as I'm continuing my sabbatical here at Porchview. Love and kisses. CЯacke®

This should be mentioned at talk wigo cp - I know a lot of people probably read both pages, but that's where it is more likely to come up. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:02, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Theory question relating to red links & CP[edit]

We have a lot of articles that are, in effect, direct copies of CP articles, with or without RW commentary. The CP articles have tons of links that initially are found as "red links". There have been several strategies to "de-red" them, including: 1)using {{r|}} which shows they were a link but are not linked at RW, 2) Looking at the links and either making our own page for that link, or relinking to our own page (for example "Evolution" instead of "evilution", 3)relinking with a cp:link link. On any given page, all three strategies have been used, depending on who the janitor was, if a link at RW already existed, etc. -My question is simple. Can we discuss a more "common" practice that everyone should try to use when possible, and I guess secondly, if it's a CP article, should we be linking to our own articles and their articles. I don't personally think there is an advantage one way or the other, but I would like to see all the links be handled the same way. Also, maybe in the future we can find a way to automate this process if we decide what is the best way to handle things links.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 10:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

In general, we should refrain from linking CP unless there is a reason, IMHO. (Actually, unless there is a reason like the Lenski affair, I don't particuarly like having CP articles without commentary.) I understand the problem--somewhere on this wiki there is a copy of the homosexuality article, which would be a nightmare to de-wiki or trans-wiki. Sterilewalkie-talkie 11:32, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
As I've said before, I can automate the process, i.e. replace redlinks with the r template or convert them to interwiki links or just remove the links or anything you want actually, just decide what you want. --  Nx/talk  11:44, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Just my $.02, I'd like to see a template or an automation that can apply to any imported text, which turns all links to nonactive {{r\}}redlinks. as if to say "those idiots had a link to 'homosexuality, the horrors of the gay bath house', but doesn't actually go anywhere. That really would leave the vast majority of our "redlinks" for things people really want to see articles about.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 11:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
If they're copies of CP content that we have for some reason (e.g. spoof articles, Parthian shots), I think replacing internal links with cp: links is quite sensible. Maybe we should just add a short note at the top (as a template?) to say that this is copied from CP & hence all links go to CP pages. A page full of redlinks looks bad, even if they're {{r}} ones which don't go anywhere. Another possibility is to make a bluelinks template - similar to the {{r}} one but in blue so it looks like internal links but actually isn't a link at all. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:11, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
That's misleading, (well, the r one is too). How about we create a template that simply makes it uncolored, but preserves the link in the code, e.g. [[Deceit|Liberals]] would be converted to {{nolink|Deceit|Liberals}} (simple to replace using regexp) and would appear simply as Liberals (i.e. the template would be something like this: {{{2|1}}}) --  Nx/talk  16:24, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Or make the new template in a different color? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Given the people we are critizing, on of the "funnest" (if you will grant that term) things i see is what CP thinks are "useful" links, and also how they backstroke the "link" with a cover. Like a link to a page on "obama" by referencing "scary infidels". If we do work out a code/template, it would be fun to see both the link, and the "redirection words" they use in the paragraph. Kinda "what is going through teh mind of Ken/Andy/etal". sick insight.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 16:32, 16 March 2009 (EDT)(Edit conflict).... Oh, green. for motion sickness? heh
Tooltip? --  Nx/talk  16:38, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

BEWARE TEH IDEAS OF MARCH! *YAWN*[edit]

Oh Kendoll, what happened to your plan? We, though, are doing well. --<choose> <option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 15:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Haha. Ken's retarded and pointless search is not going so well. But on the other hand CUR's retarded and pointless search is doing quite well. Champagne gentlemen? Mei 16:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Weird, isn't it? --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

I can't tell if you're being serious. Please please tell me you're not proud of those results. Mei 16:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Not proud, just amused. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:52, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Haha great. I nearly thought you were as stupid as ken. Thats a load of my mind. Mei 16:54, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Hmmm I could go some champagne. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
A google search for "Ace McWicked champagne" yields only this page. And your boats don't look too seaworthy. Mei 16:33, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Did you check a certain search enginge starting with Y? The time for stalking is over! Ace McWickedRevolt 16:41, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
We're currently topping the Google rankings for the search "ill-tempered little mustelid", but we're still behind Hilary Clinton in the search rankings for "battle-hardened weasel". WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:19, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
What are the results for "Mei is useful" Mei 17:23, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Bad news: even if you search for the exact phrase "Mei is useful" you get nothing on the first page (though the third item is hilarious). Wisest wisest Hoover! 17:53, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Phantom Hoover, however, gives me for the first four results. Wisest wisest Hoover! 18:00, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
"Only good NX is Mei." = awesome! ROFL. BTW I got Rw on the first page. Mei 18:02, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
"She's small so she's harder to hit" = true dat. Mei 18:04, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Damn. I should have read beyond the first paragraph. Wisest wisest Hoover! 18:04, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
"Mei is useful for getting people pissed at you" = wisdom. Mei 18:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

MEDIAWIKI[edit]

--<choose> <option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

It actually goes "identify a problem then fix it". Mei 16:53, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Don't you hate ECs? Enough said.
  • If we work together, we work better.
  • Neater
  • Neater
  • Easier
  • Frees up 'crats for important things
  • Could eliminate page protection
  • A pseudoscience namespace, a religion namespace, the possibilities are endless.

— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]

Isn't this the same shopping list you put up a couple of months ago? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:57, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

No. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

And why the fuck would we send "ambassadors" to those sandpits? Mei 17:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
No, it won't. It won't help at all on pages like the Saloon bar, where EC's are most likely to occur.
Again the ambassador stuff, we don't need that.
Only allows voting for members of a special user group.
Like that one.
How difficult is it to type #Redirect? but if it's that hard, I'll throw together a simple script to do it for you.
No. It takes away the fun and it would sysop Fall down for example.
A script could forbid access to certain users. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:06, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Indifferent, vandals could still add new stuff.
And when every sysop creates 6 namespaces, it will also become a mess.
And I'll add one I'd like: [4] and an update to DPL. --  Nx/talk  17:02, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
We don't want to add any more until Trent has upgraded, surely. (and that'll be tricky with some of the stuff on here, I understand)   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 17:04, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
To install an extension, you put it into a subdirectory and add a line to localsettings. If it doesn't conflict with anything else, that's it. --  Nx/talk  17:23, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Hmmm, a few points and notes about the original suggestion (some of which was already mentioned in the time it took me to write this):
  • Cite: Apparently exactly the same we already use. Or rather: We use the "Generate footnotes" part of it. Do we really need Special:Cite, which apparently only generate citation info others can use to quote our articles with fancy style and with lots of info like Version ID and Last Modified date?
  • CreateRedirect: http://mike2.openmethodology.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js <-- Just copypaste that to your userscript page, or at least the part about the redirect button
  • ProtectText: Doesn't really solve page protection, I think, but that'd be a longer discussion.
Plus maybe some other stuff, but time's not on my side right now. --Sid 17:14, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
I have made the point on MediaWiki that ProtectText is functionally useless, as you can just comment out the protected section and add your version after. Wisest wisest Hoover! 17:48, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Lets go over these one by one
  • Won't prevent edit conflicts it will just let you know who is editting - pointless
  • Ambassador won't run on RationalWiki I told you this last time.
  • We already have two voting extensions.
  • We have cite - learn to use it.
  • This looks like a specific version of input box - NX could you just add the redirect button they have a CP to the JS, please?
It's in the edittools. --  Nx/talk  18:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
Okay, I was actually thinking of of the bar above. CP has one. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 18:12, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
code in comment:
--  Nx/talk  18:15, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
What do we do with it now? - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 18:48, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
  • If we ever do an upgrade we will have this anyway.
  • Again we try to protect as little as possible we are an open edit wiki.
  • I like it if Trent only can create namespace, so we don't have yet another thing to edit war over.
  • Secure html looks fancy, but it will increase the number of protected pages.
CUR could you just let the wiki get back to normal, there is still stuff broken from the move. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 19:06, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
We've proved they're not needed. Which means CUR will return in a bit to insist that we need them. Who will give me good odds here. Mei 19:18, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Automatically demoting users to sysop is a terrible suggestion. Our sysop criteria are minimal, but there should be at least some vetting (by a human being) to avoid outright vandals being given powers. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:21, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Obvious vandals would be prevented from being sysoped. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

How? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:38, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Definitely this one. Replaces blocking. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

EC I like that one. But CUR for the love of god stop skimming the mw archives. You have FEATURE CREEP. Mei 19:35, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
[5][6] --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:32, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Those are pretty weak Mei 19:37, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
OOH! OOH! I can haz dis wun? MOAR stalker! The EmperorKneel before Zod! 19:52, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
TKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTK. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:12, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm, someone archive another session of cuR masturbating. Ew, gross. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Phalange[edit]

Did you know that: if you break a bone in your little toe, there's nothing they'll do about it? They (A & E) just tape it up and tell you to go elsewhere. It's bloody painful.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, and I have the disgusting photographs to prove it. If it changes color (to red, white, gray, black, purple, whatever) go to clinic and they feed you cheap antibiotics to return it to "normal color". Mine took about nine months to be all better. Never did figure out what the hell I smashed it against.... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:43, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
From what I gather, there's sod all they can do about it, other than tape it up. --Kels 18:37, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Did you know that: if your computer's maus ceases to function there's sod all you can do with the computer;. (An old maus with a ball under its bottom is no replacement - how did we ever manage?)   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
I have two Wacom tablets, they work just as well as mice. --Kels 18:37, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Haven't managed to install my Wacoms on UBuntu yet.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Did you know that: Alma Cogan died (in October 1966) from ovarian cancer. There but for the grace of science & technology go I.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Isn't there like a thing you can do that lets you move the mouse with keys? Mei 18:35, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Quite possibly.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 18:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
I used to have a computer without a mouse. Mei 18:52, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
You might not believe this Mei, but I remember a time before any computer mausen. My first one cost over £50. My lappy has a touch pad, of course.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 19:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Enough with the "mausen", I have a headache. Anyway my laptop has a spinning ball thing. Mei 19:20, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Roller mouses are scum collectors . . . ick. Thank the indifferent universe for LEDs Me!Sheesh!Mine! 21:04, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

I remember when LED mice were first coming into use, and the one we had reaaaaaally sucked. Took me a long time to find out they're way superior. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 18:43, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
I think between a tablet and my ability to navigate windows (albiet slowly) with a keyboard, I hardly touch a mouse any more. And with handwriting recognition I sometimes don't use the keyboard much for stuff either :p ArmondikoVpathetic 11:12, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
@ Toast - Can you sing like Alma Cogan then? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
My first computer work involved a teletype terminal and punched tape. Hell, we didn't even have a screen and it took about 4 minutes to plot a single sine wave cycle. Of course that was after we manually entered a machine-code bootstrap loader using toggle switches so that we could read the operating system from a master tape. Mice? Kids today don't know they're born. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:21, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Vandal bin in recent changes[edit]

Why don't we just transclude RationalWiki:Vandal in a collapsed, right floated box (here)? --  Nx/talk  19:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

On what, every article? Or somewhere more specific? I think it comes up when "vandalling" a user name, was your goal to immortalize them? I guess my question is... (upside down question mark)que? (ħumanUser talk:Human)
Read the section header. Pinto's5150 Talk 03:18, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
For the same reason it's desirable to see the block log in recent changes. To prevent abuse and to know what's going on. IIRC Trent is/was working on getting it into recent changes, so this would be a temporary workaround. 08:26, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
Do you mean making it so movements in and out of the VB turn up as "events" on RC? That would make more sense to me... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:28, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
I've written a user script that can read the vandal log and inject it into recent changes. It's bound to contain bugs because I wrote it around midnight and the contents and format of recent changes depends on so many things, but it seems to be working fine now. You can try it if you want, it's here. --  Nx/talk  03:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
You can find it easy enough via the vandalism link so I don't see what benefit transcluding the thing onto that page would be. Having them pop up as RC events would be okay. ArmondikoVpathetic 11:17, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

E-mail[edit]

E-mail has been enabled on the site now, we will see how things go. tmtoulouse 18:50, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Are you sure? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:54, 18 March 2009 (EDT)