User talk:AD

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)

G+

You still running it? Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 03:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, in the sense that I am doing nothing at all with it and just holding on to the name so no one else gets it. Now that you've reminded me, maybe I'll add a feed of our new articles.--^talk 03:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Тy^{sic semper} 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Respond to your question. Long. Suggestion for how to handle this, if you are game.

[1]. AD, for me to write less takes more time, not less, and I'm already pushed, beyond what I'd rationally, for my own self-interest, choose to invest.

This is long. It took me a crazy amount of time to write. I would take me about 3 minutes to read it, if someone else had written it. Skimming, less. However, let me suggest this: unless you really want to, don't read the whole thing. Not yet, anyway. Instead, start at the beginning until you have a comment to make. Then insert the comment right there, short or long, indented, don't wait to read the rest first. And don't go on unless you feel like it. After all, I might be laying a foundation at the beginning for what I write later, and if the communication at the beginning isn't complete, the rest is quite possibly useless. No wonder it would seem like too much!

Just give it the time that you care to spare.

Game?

You have no obligation to read any comment of mine. I have faced this issue from more than one side, for years, I've corresponded with very bright people who "write too much." What to do? Well, I'm just straight with them, as you were in your comment on the Denialgate page. I read what I can, when I can. It takes moments to respond, if that's the case, with "I didn't have time to do more than glance at this. Could you send me a brief summary?"

If that is accompanied with "Such-and-such caught my eye. That's an interesting idea," I am actually helping this person to organize their thoughts in a way that will interface with my thinking. This kind of back-and-forth happens very rapidly in face-to-face conversation.

I may suffer from a belief that others can read as rapidly as I do. I really don't know how rapidly others read. For me, in any case, reading isn't usually a problem. It's writing that takes time. So, for me, if I think there is a problem with someone writing too much, it would be that I think I'm supposed to reply.

There is a secondary problem with understanding, particularly writing that may be attempting to convey new or unfamiliar concepts. But I can usually still skim stuff, enough to ask a cogent question or two.

I may write a lot on-wiki. It's impoverished compared to what can happen face-to-face. They say a picture is worth 1000 words, and what's available in face-to-face communication is vastly greater than a single picture, than thousands of pictures. There are concepts that I've been trying to explain on-wiki for many years, with only a few getting it. Face-to-face, I can explain them to a general audience, at least the basic ideas, in a couple of minutes, I've done it. If I lose eye contact with the audience, and what I call presence, I revert to what is little more than text, with them seeing someone, me, who is practically asleep by comparison, and they don't get it. I used to blame them for being dim. It was me, lost in my own mind.

Does RationalWiki have collapse templates? If not, I might bring some in. I did do some "collapse to history" writing, with only a summary visible. Collapse can be an easy way to layer text according to interest level.

As it is, AD, it might seem unbelievable, but I'm already spending time -- too much time -- editing down what I write. That's not been a complete process, i.e., I haven't boiled it down to polished polemic. Still, what I see on RationalWiki is an environment with not enough discussion, not enough real interaction on issues, with a set of active users who seem quite confident that they have the answers. And it's very visible to me in a few areas, where I happen to have extensive knowledge and experience, that they are almost clueless. That's not popular to express, it would almost never be. The belief that one already knows, however, can be fatal to rational thinking, and it's not about content. I.e., it could be a belief about God, or about atheism. It could be an idea about some pseudoscience, or debunking the same pseudoscience.

On the cold fusion article, text was just inserted giving an argument based on conditions in supernovae, imagining that if cold fusion were real, it would, of course, happen even more at very high energies. It's a totally bogus and irrelevant argument, like saying that if life evolved at low temperatures, why, of course, surely it would have evolved even more rapidly in supernovae, think how much energy would be available! This argument sounded good to someone, a blogger, who has no clue about the real debate, and it was from that blogger that the article text was sourced. There are real debates. That wasn't it.

If I wanted to damage RationalWiki maximally, I'd go and find more stuff like that and put it in. False arguments supporting skeptical positions. Every one of those creates an opportunity for the enemies of reason to attack the site and rational skepticism.

The real problem, in my view, is that there is a large set of wiki users -- it's not just here -- who want to decide complex issues with sound bite discussions that cannot possibly communicate what would be needed for deeper understanding. It works sometimes, and it becomes a habit. But it's precisely how Wikipedia got stuck, and it's murder on experts, who tend to imagine that others will be interested in the topic, after all, isn't this the Talk page on the article on the topic? Professional experts may be more restrained than amateurs, because they aren't being paid, they are doing you a favor if they even look at your wiki and drop a few words. Amateurs, though, are into a topic because they are highly interested in it. They are, almost intrinsically, "cranks." After all, normal people don't usually care that much about the topic.

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic, that phenomenon seems to be well-understood here, it's why skeptics will often avoid real-time debates. (I can engage in real-time debate, but I wouldn't attempt it with text. Face-to-face, with an audience, maybe. Even then, it's a bit like being the fastest gun in the West. One slip....) The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts, nor, as is more a possibility here, to just ignore them, but to find ways to constructively engage with them. I've seen it work, over and over. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. Break the COI rules, they'd be blocked until they promise compliance, and stick to it. Wikipedia, however, had come to consider COI as only a step short of Vandal. And my proposals were read that way, as somehow being anti-expert. The opposite.

I have no expectation of controlling content or process here without convincing others to support proposals. The idea that I'm writing so much to intimidate is, well, a pure invention. It doesn't work, never has worked, couldn't possibly work. But that hasn't stopped this from being asserted, over and over.

I was last topic-banned on Wikipedia, not because of tendentious editing or seriously over-long Talk there, but because I'd filed a delisting request, on the meta wiki, for an abusively blacklisted web page. False statements were made about the history and facts, as was common in that case. The original request was very brief, and longer comment only became necessary because of the false claims. So I had responded, with evidence. That always takes a lot of text, when the issue is at all complex. The request was successful, and, from what had come down before, without that evidence, it would have been denied, they were about to deny it. However, before that satisfactory decision, I was topic banned on Wikipedia because of the length of my comments on the other wiki (generally that would be contrary to policy). Look, AD, those people had been after me for years, they were just looking for excuses, it had become completely obvious, and I bailed from Wikipedia when I realized and demonstrated that due process was completely dead there, it was all social wiki, whom you knew, or who liked what, it was not about content. The policies and guidelines are great, but without reliable and neutral enforcement, useless. Unsafe.

You have some of those people here, and they haven't changed. I'm already being reverted, in some cases, because of who I am, explicitly. Not because of the content.

In any case, thanks again for engaging. I mean that. You will find me cooperative, I guarantee it. I'm not a concern troll, because I want to see RationalWiki successful, I want to see the content here be stronger and clearer in debunking pseudoscience, not weaker. The skeptical movement has been, to some extent, taken over by pseudoskeptics, I've been watching that for years. It happens because a pseudoskeptic is really a kind of believer, and believers become cranks, motivated. --Abd (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand your position. Unfortunately, yours seems to be that everyone else on the wiki is wrong, and that we are taking shortcuts by discussing with sound bytes rather than cogent arguments. I think that is mostly incorrect, and while there is some level of groupthink (unavoidable in a close-knit community with shared goals) we also strive to be fair and skeptical of our biases, and to trade in ideas rather than slogans.

There are reasons why most people converse in a short paragraph or two, venturing into longer discussions only when necessary. First of all, such interactions are primarily conversations, not debates. Effective communication in this venue does not demand an unreasonable investment of time or mental energy from a reader - instead, it aims to convey the essential ideas and necessary support, and then engage on items of conflict. Ironically, to explain this requires a long post of my own, but you should note that this is specifically to address your own numerous points. On the talk page that prompted this discussion, my comment was brief and to the point.

Since you are being so frank with me, I will be frank with you, using a paragraph from your post here as an example. I am not cherry-picking; I tried to pick a section illustrative of my point:

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic, that phenomenon seems to be well-understood here, it's why skeptics will often avoid real-time debates. (I can engage in real-time debate, but I wouldn't attempt it with text. Face-to-face, with an audience, maybe. Even then, it's a bit like being the fastest gun in the West. One slip....) The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts, nor, as is more a possibility here, to just ignore them, but to find ways to constructively engage with them. I've seen it work, over and over. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. Break the COI rules, they'd be blocked until they promise compliance, and stick to it. Wikipedia, however, had come to consider COI as only a step short of Vandal. And my proposals were read that way, as somehow being anti-expert. The opposite.

There's nothing wrong with this paragraph. Your grammar and spelling are fine and you express your ideas well enough. However, you also appear to be tacking on anything that seems relevant. And since you seem bright, that amounts to a great deal. But if you trim away all of the secondary points:

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic, that phenomenon seems to be well-understood here, it's why skeptics will often avoid real-time debates. (I can engage in real-time debate, but I wouldn't attempt it with text. Face-to-face, with an audience, maybe. Even then, it's a bit like being the fastest gun in the West. One slip....) The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts, nor, as is more a possibility here, to just ignore them, but to find ways to constructively engage with them. I've seen it work, over and over. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. Break the COI rules, they'd be blocked until they promise compliance, and stick to it. Wikipedia, however, had come to consider COI as only a step short of Vandal. And my proposals were read that way, as somehow being anti-expert. The opposite.

The result, I think, communicates most everything you needed to express - and omits including everything that occurred to you:

These are the available people who actually know topics. Fringe amateurs can out-debate a casual skeptic. The solution is not to ban these enthusiastic experts but to find ways to constructively engage with them. On Wikipedia, my suggestion was to protect anyone who self-declared as an expert, but require them to follow Conflict of Interest rules. In other words, they couldn't do anything controversial without convincing a non-expert. [But] my proposals were read as somehow being anti-expert.

This includes your larger point about the problem in this paragraph, with its suggested solution, and backs it up with your relevant anecdote. If someone asked about your CoI rule controversy, then it would make sense to explain about the background and give more detail.

In other words, please stop writing every parenthetical and subsidiary point that occurs to you. You are like the smart guy at the party who is very earnest and very well-researched but who talks until your eyes glaze over. Concision is seriously a virtue, because your garrulousness is an impediment to effective communication.

Other points:

I did not think you were trying to intimidate, only that you were unwittingly being intimidating. I assume you are here in good faith, and while you seem to hold a few strong counter-establishment views, there's nothing wrong with that.

We do have collapse templates, yes. I do not think they would help very much in this instance.--^talk 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm taking it to heart. Please help me out if I fail at this. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and so long

Reviewing this, I note that you were not "game." You are the best RW has to offer, as far as anything I've seen, nobody else I've noticed is in your class. I don't think RW is ever going to come close to realizing the stated goals, the elements aren't present. I won't be watching for response, but if you ever care to communicate, I'll keep email up, I've shut down my watchlist notifications. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alan Caruba cont'd

Guess where your old friend showed up? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, I read that; he put it on his own blog. He has gotten increasingly more shrill about environmentalists over the past few months, and it's probably not going to get any better. I claim a personal victory in that respect: a couple of days ago he posted an email chain letter - after I hammered on him about it, he had to delete it.--^talk 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More shrill? Is that even possible? I thought environmentalists were already worse than Hitler. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

He just keeps turning up his outrage level. It's a weird confluence of his former job selling pesticides ("If we just sprayed everything with DDT there'd be no bedbugs!"), his job working for the Heritage Foundation ("Grrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaclimategate!"), his age ("Fuck 'em, I'll be dead anyway.") and his general nature.--^talk 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Biological determinism

Planning on working any more on your snarticle? I've been toying around with doing a dramatic expansion, but I get the feeling I'll turn it into a recycled term project. Plus my views are decidedly biased, i.e. pretty strongly anti-hereditarian. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha I'd forgotten about it! I'll give it another crack - any suggestions?--^talk 05:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of what I have first-hand familiarity with would fit under scientific racism or eugenics. On the not-so-evil front, Dean Hamer's popular work really grates on me for its general genetic determinism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote some of your material if'n ya don't mind. I might throw in some other common fallacies at some point like broad sense vs. narrow sense heritability (a distinction commonly overlooked and thus abused by hereditarians and the popular media). I'm going to have to try to avoid sounding like a biology textbook somehow, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not possessive of articles, especially since I know you have your head on straight - rewrite it all if you can improve it! I'd be interested to read this heritability fallacy, too.--^talk 05:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's one of my favorite papers on that. I don't know how much sense that makes if you're not familiar with the jargon, though, but I love the "heritability" of wearing sunglasses bit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have only some smidgen of autodidactic scientific knowledge, but I think I get most of this. It's interesting - definitely add some of it to the article.--^talk 05:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to rifle through some old papers and texts to make a decent job of it. Basically, though, these models of heredity were designed for agricultural purposes and so quite obviously fail from my perspective when applied to human behavior. It makes about as much sense as doing a Marxist analysis of cellular respiration. You'd be laughed out of the room if you suggested such a thing, but these hereditarian models are considered "Hard Science"^TM because biology is considered more "real" than those squishy, fuzzy social sciences and humanities. But I'm not a cultural determinist or "blank slater" (more a term of abuse today than any real intellectual position) either. This is why I advocate a systems biology approach when it comes to behavioral sciences, and emergentist thinking in general. The traditional biological approaches to behavior have generated useful knowledge, but a mountain of failure that more than counterbalances that success. And you don't need some fuzzy-headed philosopher to tell you that, just good old Maynard Smith (as I added to the article): "Attempts to import biological theories into sociology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation." And now you've got me started rambling.... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Korean Education, somewhat inspires a school in Harlem?

Hm. The principal was an English teacher in Korea. Reminded me of you! It was an interesting documentary.--Dumpling (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahha I love Korean news... always with the montages with classical music!

Good for this school, though. This is great work they're doing, and unusually outward-looking for an American school. I love the worksheet they showed and the very neat lettering - like a Korean kindergartener!--^talk 04:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Another postmodern man

I added some more stuff to postmodernism to try expand beyond literary theory and Sokal. Care to smooth any of it out a bit? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look! :) --^talk 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better now! It could still use some tightening up, but I'm not quite sure what parts should be pared down yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It just needs a whole new rewrite, incorporating everything there now. I'll do it someday, unless someone else gets to it first (i.e. hint hint you go do it go do it go do it)--^talk 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? I don't think it needs a wholesale rewrite, just a bit of fine-tuning. Of course, I'm coming at po-mo from a social science/philosophy of science angle and you're coming from the literary angle, so our opinions are probably pretty divergent on the issue. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, not a full rewrite, I think - poor choice of words. It's just accumulated a lot of caveats and separate sections and so on, and needs consolidation into a coherent presentation.--^talk 07:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I getcha. If you say which parts you want to fix up, I can attempt a bit of revision. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The "relationship to science" bit looks fine. But I wanted to sort out the other two sections. The original long section I wrote is now under "utility," even though it comprises some criticism as well, so it needs to be untangled to suit the new organization.--^talk 07:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

IT.IS.DONE.

You can check it on RWW now. --Dumpling (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha wonderful! Thank you!--^talk 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative literary criticism

Since you love talking about literature, I thought I'd share a couple posts of my favorite blogger, wherein he critiques conservatives' hilarious attempts at saying something meaningful about literature: here and here. The comments section of the first post is also enjoyable to read. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahaha! Very interesting!--^talk 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please intervene

Several users have ganged up to constantly block me. It has gotten to the point where it is incredibly frustrating. Right now, my IP is blocked because of ArchieGoodwin and I'm having to rely on Tor. I can't unblock it because P-Foster removed my rights. Even before my block rights were removed, unblocking myself was futile since as soon as I did so, I would be blocked again. I'm sick of it. Don't ask me to roll with the punches. This has gone too far. Please intervene.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on vacation at the moment, and only online a few minutes a day. I will be able to help you in a couple of days; I hope that someone else, though, investigates this in the meantime.--^talk 08:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you get Archie off my back? I don't want to bother you more than I have, but you're the only active moderator right now (or if Ace is still here, the only active moderator that'll do his job)--"Shut up, Brx." 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm checking in pretty much daily, bricks. Last I checked I was also a mod, lol. ħuman 02:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can absolutely assure you that any conceivable action I might take will just make things worse for you. Seriously.

Archie is blocking you because it's fun watching you react, and it's fun to exercise power against someone without having to suffer consequences because they're so widely disliked. If you indulge in your customary reaction, you'll start appealing to people, making impassioned pleas for attention, and starting formal proceedings. This is a reaction the people bothering you will enjoy, and further, it will allow a feeling of righteousness on their part because you'd be "causing trouble." They'll do it more. And then it will become a funny thing for everyone, and more people will do it. Meanwhile another screaming match will begin.

There is a better course. And since repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is not a wise decision, I would suggest you try something new. It's harder to glorify in your own mind, so it may not appeal, but it will be more effective: stop fucking whining. Just let it go. You'll have to unblock yourself eight or nine times, maybe many more. It will happen today, and maybe the next time you get on Foster's nerves, and so on. But resist the temptation to be what Godot rightly called a "drama queen" and let it go. In two or three weeks, after you ignore it and don't raise a shrieking fucking hissy fit over the matter, then it will slow down and stop. It will be boring, and it will be obviously bullying.

The only way to win this game is not to play. Just ignore it and socialize, or even do something useful.--^talk 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What has my reaction been so far? Unblocking myself? I count six times. Most of them I didn't leave a comment. I hope you know that you're supporting a toxic culture (no, not the "new" one)--"Shut up, Brx." 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1) lol @ Niu Kulture 2) I'm blocking you because you're a horrible person and maybe one day it will sink into your think skull to fucking leave. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some day, i'll have the balls to ask you how old you are, AD. I've seen what I *think* is a pic of you, and you look 12, but you act all 40 and wise and "been there, done that". ahhh, the connundrum that is my dear AD. :-) Godot On a perdu le contrôle 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You can find out all about me from my G+ profile and my blog :) But I'm 29, to answer your question.--^talk 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am 31 with the liver of a god and the attitude of a 12 year old. And that makes me damned happy. Ace^Moderator 01:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the liver thing! I just cannot do liquor, it's shameful. Aside from face-contorting Jaegermeister in college and the occasional G&T, I have discovered that liquor just ain't my thing, and I admire those who drink it. A Scottish friend of mine keeps buying me different whiskies (latest one: something called "Lu Fruege" or something similarly Scottish and unpronounceable) and it just tastes like burning.--^talk 01:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Laphroiag, and if you can't drink it we all think less of you. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bring it to me in Wellington. Ace^Moderator 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(ECX3) Hate wine, esp. Rose. Like ale, rum, and brandy. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AD - that makes sense, then. Ace - not good. ! I'm 43 and just got told that a 25 year old guy thought I was "in his age range". wheeee..... !!!! Godot On a perdu le contrôle 01:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)your page is too popular, damn edit cons!

Will do! Six or seven months and I'll get my degree and have a couple of things published, and then my wife and I are going to hit up the north island and take a look around. I'll swing on by and bring you a bottle of something, and you can drink the whole thing yourself. I will have a delicious beer instead.--^talk 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll provide the ale. Tried Tuatara Pilsner yet? Delicious. Ace^Moderator 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm

fuck yeah

Ace^Moderator 00:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What?--^talk 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the good stuff

Ace^Moderator 00:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good.--^talk 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You can probably get that made out of soy and grain--24.251.69.25 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Most fake meats aren't very good. My favorite veggieburgers, for example, are those that concentrate on being delicious, not those that try to resemble beef. My wife swears by "Smartdog" brand veggie hot dogs, though.--^talk 01:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Trader Joe's Meatless Meatballs, for example, taste exactly like real meatballs. At least, I think they do. I haven't had meatballs in a very long time.--24.251.69.25 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't tried those. When I get back to the US in a couple of years, I'll give them a try.--^talk 01:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not very nice. I'd always thought highly of you. Ah, well.

I wouldn't take me seriously. I am just in a rare mood and feeling off today. No harm intended. Ace^Moderator 02:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okeydokey! None taken :) Hope everything's chill with you; gotta be warmer up there, at least.--^talk 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, actually really pleasant today and Easter was awesome. How's the weather down there? Ace^Moderator 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been cold and gray the past few days, although this afternoon is looking nice. Easter weekend was amazing - not a cloud in the sky and beautiful (although that may be because I was up in Kaikoura).--^talk 02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I note you have been to the Catilins? Did you go anywhere near a small town called Alexandria? Ace^Moderator 02:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not as I recall. Didn't spend much time in the Caitlins - it was mostly passing through to Fiordland. Spent the night in Tuatepere, is all.--^talk 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You should spend some time in central Otago. There is a beautiful small town called Saint Bathans which has the nicest pub owners (OK I know them but still...) and is just a wonderful example of early century gold rush New Zealand. My Dad bought a section of land not to far from there and built his own little hut made entirely from this scavenged from the local recycling centre. Old doors, corrugated iron etc etc. I'll find some photos..... Ace^Moderator 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds nice! Maybe it'd be a good weekend trip next semester.--^talk 02:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Acehut.jpg

One of two hand built huts

Ace^Moderator 02:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ninja

Sysops don't actually have control over that. Could I please ask you to reinstate me? Also, would it be okay now if I restored my emergency-contingency-absolutely-necessary-for-my-continued-survival accounts? Thank you.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have every right to create some socks. If you are smart, then you will go a little slow and just do some editing this week, rather than attracting attention to yourself and starting another kerfuffle.--^talk 01:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, I had to make 300 mainspace edits in one day to get Ninja. Just sayin' Тy^Yes? 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because I'm cuter--"Shut up, Brx." 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it a mark of distinction or something? I didn't know it was a big deal. I'll ninja anyone who needs it and is a serious editor, as far as I'm concerned. If you object, I'm sure Brx won't insist on it.--^talk 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it like this. Everything a Ninja does is cloaked by default from RC. Edits, blocks, user rights modification, page deletions, page moving, everything. If I was feeling evil, I could... get the picture? Тy^Yes? 01:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gee, thanks a lot, Ty.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reap what you sow. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He has a good point, and tensions have been high. And what's more, he raised his concerns politely and without fucking anything up or being dramatic. You should indeed be thanking Ty.--^talk 01:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ninja

Since it seems to be a fancy thing people can do, can i have ninja as well? UI'd mostly use it on userspace articles of mine if your wondering. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Ty has justly pointed out that it's really for people who make a lot of small edits, are you sure you need it? I mean, looking back through your edits, it seems you mostly chat and edit your monobook.js file. There's nothing wrong with that, but what do you need to be able to bot yourself for - a dozen mainspace edits a day or whatnot? Just curious.--^talk 01:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

so i dont bother people if i feel like editing my userspace stuff mostly. 90% of it they wont care about and is just more my use anyways. and if i cant get em, eh, ok, no real lose. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ninja mode is supposed to be used when you are doing repetitive, remedial work like changing categories on 200 pages, cause you think "author" is better than "authors", or when you've created a new page that has 100 potential pages linking to it, adn all you will be doing is adding brackets to the word "the" 300 times. There really is no reason for it for any day to day editing. --Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)