The back alley

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>
A place to sit in a dumpster with your own bottle & moan about the saloon bar

Musha rig um du rum da
Whack fol the daddy o
Whack fol the daddy o
There's whiskey in the jar

black invention myth debunked says right winger[edit]

This discussion was moved to RW:BAR#black invention myth debunked says right winger.


I just realized something: this is the talk page of a talk page. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well no, it's the talk page of a RationalWiki page. Pedantry level up!Kazitor, pending 05:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It's both. PearOfSalamancaCrisis? What crisis?


What is this for? Bombshell (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s a place for general discussion about anything that doesn’t fit anywhere else. Christopher (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
well no, that would be the saloon bar. this is the talk page for the place for general discussion about anything that doesn’t fit anywhere else. it was always quite redundant and thus filled with assorted nonsense which folk got bored with pretty quickly. pointless arse that is somehow more pointlessy arse than some of the stuff that occasionaly appears in the saloon bar? you see its inherent flawAMassiveGay (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mods on a power kick?[edit]

I appreciate that mods are an important part of a site like this, but are there any safeguards against mods who are just on a bit of a power kick? For example, someone who might undo multiple edits that have offended them without any kind of explanation or reference to the RationalWiki guidelines. It seems that every now and again you may get a mod who perhaps isn't quite able to participate on an intellectual level, so ends up going a bit nuts with a ban-hammer instead... and as far as I can see, there's nothing the site can do about it? Is that about right? I signed up thinking this was a discursive community site as per "we welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" - but that doesn't quite work if there is even one unaccountable autocrat, unwilling to engage in dialogue, who normal users can't touch. Star Gazer (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

mods dont have any special powers. they cant do anything a regular user cannot AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Do I mean mod? Maybe I've got the wrong terminology, maybe I mean sysop. Anyway, whoever has the power to shut down discussion by undoing edits, blocking users then locking a page. Star Gazer (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
that is literally everyone. you or i can revert, block anyone or anything here AMassiveGay (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Errrm that doesn't seem to be true. There is a whole that only SysOps can do. "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Sysops". So my question remains. Anyone experienced on RationalWiki tell me how constructive dialogue can be encouraged, if just one SysOp decides against that policy? Star Gazer (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
pretty much everyone is a sysop here. its like the default position. you argue your point and try to gain a consensus via talk pages. if you cant, you'll likely be reverted. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No one starts as a SysOp, so it's not default. I agree with your point, but my issue is that people can and do ignore a Talk page. An example; I made an edit, it was reverted and I was told to take it to a Talk page. Fine. So I took it to the Talk page, and no one had anything to say about it, including the person that asked. I concluded that it had passed muster, so I put it back. Then it gets reverted again, no explanation, no talk, no dialogue. Just a SysOp tantrum. If the site is supposed to encourage constructive dialogue, awesome, I'm in. My question is still... what happens when a SysOp is unable to do that? It means that 'gaining a consensus via talk pages' ends up being a way of preventing edits, because you can just ignore the Talk pages and prevent a consensus being reached. Star Gazer (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
firstly,[RationalWiki:Sysops], secondly, i note that there is a distinct lack of dialogue from you on the bait and switch page - take it to the talk page works both ways. defend your edits if they are reverted. mods can step in an empasse. there is the chicken coop for more extreme conflict resolution, not i might add for edit wars. in all cases a majority is required. its a little early mods or coop either way. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
oh you have 'taken it to the talk page', my mistake. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Very quiet around here[edit]

Any idea what's happened? Recently there have only been about four edits each day, and right now there are just 11 changes on my watchlist from the past 72 hours. —Kazitor, pending 03:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor I've been watching anime and reading the Hitcherhiker's guide to the galaxy omnibus edition. I can't speak for anyone else though. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, If everything I bring up is just a Rant, its a rant then[edit]

Yeah its true and DeviantART is just controversial, the more I talk about stuoid users, the more Attention I bring, I found Alt-Right Pages like WorldEvents (a homophobia group of retards) but I digress.

Maybe I should thought better, hmm. Well I have not have a good idea and its true that this is just a rant, the only good part is bringing links, but you won't care anyways. *signs*MysteryMan9000 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)