Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

RationalWiki talk:Newcomers

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Yes, you really did mess this up, Bob!  ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 16:05, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I did, didn't I.--Bobbing up 16:26, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm starting this as we seem to have been getting some really green editors recently, and hopefully this article will mean that we won't need to go re-inventing the wheel whenever one of them has a problem.--Bobbing up 06:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Points of View[edit]

Don't forget to add the Snarky Point of View!  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:01, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I think that the idea was that we left people to find RationalWiki:SPOV for themselves - though whether we would want to continue such an in-joke may be another question.--Bobbing up 08:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I actually object to the phraseology "Rational Point of View". "Rational" has been so abused by people that it's very use smacks of arrogance to me. It also assumes we are somehow *magically* unbiasedâwhich we are notâand enjoy a privileged position, aware of all of the relevant facts. Which is impossibleâscience is so vast that we can never be sure of that. A better wording would be "Logical Point of View", befitting our logic-based synthesis/conclusion of what relevant facts we do know. That is, we may not be perfect, but our conclusions are consistent with what facts we have available. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:01, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Well the current description is that we are " not neutral".
  • As a site we have a point of view, and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with. We believe that the support of, profiting from and creation of pseudosciences is dangerous and wrong. We create our articles from this perspective, demonstrating the strength of science and the folly of the cranks. Do not be afraid to clearly state that some idea is Bullshit.
But we are called "Rational Wiki" so claiming our point of view is "Rational" would seem reasonable. It would also seem to fit in with the term Rationalism as we ourselves describe it. Let's see what others think.--Bobbing up 08:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, this might have merely the same effect as the comment by Radioactive cardboard at the top, but I thought I'd throw in some love for whoever added the pessimism about reading the manual. — Unsigned, by: Cripdyke / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Title, things to add, corrections?[edit]

Ok, well there's not a lot more I can think of at the moment. That seems to cover all the things I've personally explained to Newbies recently. Any other suggestions before I turn it over to general editing?--Bobbing up 08:16, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

In the section "What can I do with my user page?", should there be more limitations than just "(With some obvious restrictions like obscenity, slander or racism.) "? I would think the community would generally be against any obvious prejudice against minorities, not just racism (so things like homophobia, sexism, transphobia). --TacosRule (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not a vandal but I keep running into this message when trying to edit[edit]

You are seeing this message because you are a newly registered user and attempted to make two quick edits in a row. In order to make vandalism less fun newly registered users can only make one edit every 15 seconds. This limitation will automatically be taken away from your account very soon. What is this?

This is an anti-vandal measure called the "Vandal Brake" applied to all new accounts. It should go away in two or three days.

This brake discourages new users. New users haven't make a habit of editing this site yet. Let's not put them off. We've got enough sysops here to deal with the real vandals. We should assume good faith and shouldn't treat all new users as potential vandals. We shouldn't let new users feel insulted when we compare them to vandals. Proxima Centauri 09:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

That may be a good point PC. But this this is already in operation. It's not a proposal. It's happening now. This just explains why they are getting that message.  :-) --Bobbing up 09:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Do you have influence with those who could change it? Proxima Centauri 12:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
It was created and implemented by Tmtoulouse . I guess that if you put a note on his userpage he'd respond there.  :-) --Bobbing up 12:22, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
I concur with Proxima on this one. I'll be joining her on Trent's page about this. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:53, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
It's a fifteen second edit brake. Brand new users can make four edits a minute. Perhaps the message could be reworded slightly to avoid the comparison to vandals? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Maybe also add a message that says "if you want this feature removed earlier, whine request so at XYZ's userpage. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 15:08, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I was thinking of that too NightFlare. It would be nice if we had a way to give some people quick release. (so to speak). That user on Human's talk page for example.--Bobbing up 15:15, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Living people[edit]

Should we have something about what we can write about living people? Along the lines of:

  • "If you write something which you could be libellous please make sure that you have a reference"

--BobSpring is sprung! 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is so out of date[edit]

It needs to cover more important questions like:

  • Why am I being sworn at?
  • Why did you just delete my masterpiece?
  • I have views that are considered heterodox by the other 99.99999998571429% of the world's population, why are you being hostile to me?
  • This is suppose to be rationalwiki, why don't you agree with me?
  • Where can I participate in pointless concern trolling?
  • What is the best way to anger long-standing members?
  • This is how wiki's are suppose to work, why won't you let me enforce this rule?

- π Moderator 12:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 Scream!! (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should I bother contributing to a wiki that doesn't welcome new editors? -- Nx / talk 14:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Why can't I just do everything like they do it on Wikipedia? This is pretty much the same thing, right? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Also: Why do people seem to get testy when I continue to do things which other users have expressly asked me not to do? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This one. - π Moderator 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You just deleted my masterpiece for being "off-mission," why can't I delete the rest of these obviously off-mission articles? Blue Talk 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I could be arsed to update it, but....--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, do I feel like sticking my neck out... Evil fascistoh noez 17:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Atheist Agenda[edit]

Can I speak the truth on the articles or do I have to put what my atheist superiors tell me to? --90.219.6.46 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Use the talk page, then when we've got the official line from George Soros we'll give you a go or no-go. rpeh •TCE 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Dunno what you mean --90.219.6.46 (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"All RationalWiki articles seem to have a specific point of view - why is this?"[edit]

The elephant in the room in this section has less to do with rationalism narrowly defined and more to do with the community's support of a basically progressive agenda -- anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, pro-democracy, etc etc. These things are informed by the four elements of the mission statement, but they are also distinct from them, and there is no denying we spend a lot of electrons defending those values. Is there a way to write a sentence or two about why edits that are not friendly to, say, an anti-racist or homophobic or anti-feminist worldview are likely to be reverted without necessarily laying out a political manifesto? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Bullshit comes in many forms" would cover the reasoning, though not satisfy the objectors themselves. Also, TWIAVBP - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
TWIAVBP? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The world is a very big place. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You could just be honest and admit your bias, and stop pretending that you take care to be rational (take a drink) about it. Chrimony (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi I am indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia because I believe that slavery and forced labour, both modern and historical, are important topics which should not be ignored, and because disagreeing with people on Wikipedia who feel otherwise is considered disruptive. These people instead keep talking about undue weight and wikipedia is not a soapbox and accusing me of trying to right great wrongs, along with a bunch of other bureaucratic nonsense. I want to know if I am welcome to document information about slavery here instead. Ashy Waves (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"I created some red links and they were removed - why?"[edit]

This recommends creating a stub for any redlinks. Is this still recommended? --Annanoon (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)