Talk:RationalWiki/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

Update page[edit]

This article makes no mention of the Loya Jirga, and the authoritarian ramifications that resulted. 86.40.109.221 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee golly gosh. Oh my. ħuman

16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In seriousness, it's a non-notable aspect of site policy, really.

^moral 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In a "how the site works" section, I could see how anyone but the cabal would see it as apropos. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Except I'm not in the "cabal", actually. Do people actually think I am? I'm pretty sure there are only about 3 people left from the original group, so not much of a cabal anyway. But if you want to grind your lulz axe, feel free to buy server space and learn to install and operate your own version of MediaWiki.

^moral 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh... The "loya jirga", the only official regulatory body at RW, doesn't have anything to do with how the site works...and you're not in the cabal, no sir. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I can see

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Dispute resolution follows a well worn pattern on RationalWiki

Two site members disagree over a minor point of protocol
The remarks get increasingly heated
All and sundry weigh in with remarks, some of which might be marginally useful
The discussion enters HCM
Calls are made to the loya jirga to step in and resolve the dispute
The various members of the loya jirga - a collection of longstanding and respected members of the site - ignore the call and/or make conflicting remarks
Eventually some sort of resolution is decided - usually by a vote
The resolution is completely ignored by the rest of the mob

Or is that too snarky? Jack Hughes (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not too snarky, but as this is in the mainspace, I think it should be more article-ified into a "management" kind of setting.

^moral 16:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying. This might be silly, but should it be "RationalWiki:RationalWiki" then? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets be honest with ourselves here. What really happened was that formally all talk pages, and edits, bar obvious vandalism, were sacrosanct. It was assumed that users were mature enough to ignore or even ridicule those comments which might upset them. Instead, due to the rather conservative tendencies among people here (Namely the urge to ban, revert, and be authoritarian in relation to anything anyone doesn't like or is offended by) characterises the new rationalwiki, the wiki which involves wikipedian nerds like Gerard insisting on 'being a member of the community' - thus outlawing members such as Earthland - due to a peculiar definition of what characterises inclusion or not. Thus the Loya Jirga legitimises such authoritarian inclinations and makes such vulgar and extremists beliefs the new value system of rationalwiki.

In short, what was once considered sacred by virtue of every individual having an irrepresible right to freedom of expression, has now become a pithy reminder of how far this site has fallen in the stated objectives of its mission statement on the front page.

This article should now be rewritten in order to bear some relation to what it has actually become. 86.40.99.26 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct in all points. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You lost your right to freedom of expression by abusing it. -- Nx / talk 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx - Freedom of expression is a UNIVERSAL and NATURAL RIGHT which is the PRESERVE OF ALL MEN. A pumped up little wikipedia geek has no right to remove it. 86.40.99.26 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no universal and natural rights here, troll. The community, and ultimately Trent, the owner of this website, decides what rights you have. You can exercise your right to freedom of expression on your little blog. -- Nx / talk 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you find fault in BoN's assessment or are you just trolling him, troll? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes I can. -- Nx / talk 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lies. Liar. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If Nx upsets you so much, why not ignore him? Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You have freedom of expression unless Nx decides you're going too far. Then, rather than express himself or ignore you (which he has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is utterly incapable of), he'll censor you. Probably makes sense in whatever eastern european detroit analog he probably lives in. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You and I well know that Toulouse has deliberately created a power vacuum. He is the proprieter of this site and has made a conscious effort not to install these hideous authoritarian rules. For example, never once has he reverted or banned me. You are not the proprieter of this site and thus you have no natural right to repress my universal, natural rights. 86.40.99.26 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't, but the community, and the LJ in their name, has. -- Nx / talk 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the LJ in 'the communities name'. Why not call it the Politburo and be done with it? you have no respect for fundamental human rights on this website. The will of the elite is the will of site. The revolution is complete, freedom is an illusion to manipulate the stupid. Thats why the clever ones like you look to accrue power, you horrible bastard. 66.90.73.223 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no respect for the empty rhetoric of a troll. -- Nx / talk 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Martin Luther King was trolling the American South. Just like Gandhi trolled the British Empire. And Mandela trolled apartheid era South Africa. Hyperbole aside, the fundamental point remains - you do not get to decide who is right and who is wrong. All you can do is join in the marketplace of ideas - any repression of that marketplace makes you an intolerant authoritarian prig, an enemy of the cause of freedom, and a perpetuation of authoritarian, fascist regimes everywhere in the world. 86.40.104.220 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not get to decide who is right and who is wrong. But I know that you are wrong. -- Nx / talk 20:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That statement is irrelevant and you know it. Whether I am a troll or not is irrelevant and has only a tangential relation to the facts at hand. The fact is that you are a fascist, enforcing authoritarian legislation, you have overseen the development of the ruling cadre, which has abandoned core rationalwiki principles. I have told you before I test, I test you every day in order to re-affirm and strengthen the relationship with reason and freedom - and I was terrified about what I had created, or at least help create. You have to fix it Nx, you have to stop your present course and embrace reform. 86.40.104.220 (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that you are a troll, and that is completely relevant. This is a textbook case of concern trolling, but isn't it funny how no-one has reverted any of your comments here? Maybe it's because the site hasn't abandoned it's core principles, only brought them closer to reality. Or maybe no-one has enough machismo. -- Nx / talk 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How many times Nx? How many times must I put up with your insolence? Silence. You are engaging in typical smear tactics, something your pals such as RA and that Gerard prick mastered from their wikipedia days. I am the voice of truth and reason, and I shall never submit to your 'Loya Jirga', and before I'm finished my MarcusCicero account will be completely freed, and the ancient rights and liberties of rationalwiki will be restored. This is a worthwhile cause, a righteous cause, and no matter how many political appartchiks stand in my way, I will prevail. 86.40.104.220 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. -- Nx / talk 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's brightening up an otherwise quiet recent changes page. Tempted to throw a block though, if only to help compensate for my phenomenally tiny genitals and self-esteem issues. ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It's most likely because you're the one that's "feeding the troll". If it had been anyone else, you'd probably have reverted or collapsed or archived by now. Then again, you're a hypocrite when it comes to that kind of thing, so no one is surprised and no one wants to war with you over enforcing your own authoritarian policies. It is your wiki, after all. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

THEN STOP FEEDING IT!!!! P-Foster (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He's either having fun or just plain weak. His intelligence would suggest he's having fun, but some of his compulsive behavior suggest it's weakness. I don't think we'll ever know the truth about Nx. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

EC Hey Jack--your reading of how the LJ works is wrong. The LJ only works when it has been called upon to resolve a dispute--it does not rule from on high. Before the "you can erase trolling" ruling that came down last weekend, please show me a case that has been formally brought before the LJ, as opposed to a bunch of editors who happen to be LJ'ers arguing as regular editors...P-Foster (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry[edit]

So, what happens if Toulouse's apartment, say, catches fire or he gets hit by a car? Sen (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, we are fucked. SJ ^Debaser 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See: Forum:Keepers of the keys. tmtoulouse 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. Why not make the database open for download by anyone though, and give the "keepers of the keys" just rights to the URL name etc. Suppose the "evil government" decides to go after you. If two people have the database, that's still just two people to have accidents and then the database to be under the control of someone else. If various anyones have the database, then the worst someone can do is damage/control the URL name which would be annoying, but not really that important. [/paranoid]. Sen (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The full database contains a lot of sensitive information, usernames, passwords, ip addresses, etc. If the main interest is in the content of the site then see RationalWiki:Content dumps. tmtoulouse 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that. Sen (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As Trent pointed out, we are pretty much covered. And will be even better so in the not-too-far-off future, see the LLC discussion somewhere. ħuman

01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Defined by a negative[edit]

I think this article should be reworked to be more about what we are than what we are not. Anyone strongly disagree? tmtoulouse 20:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, until you look at the articles, most of which attack their subject. RW, in practice, is about attacking the negative rather than praising the positive, so this article should reflect that. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but this article reads more like an essay on how we are not wikipedia. tmtoulouse 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I just skimmed it real quick and it seems to say what we are and what do fairly well. Pointing out that we aren't an encyclopedia could be removed, I suppose, but it is an important point since we look like one due to our article style (unlike a wiki which is obviously about one topic or topics). I suppose we could axe the Jimbo Wales joke, too - that section will need a bit of a rewrite in a bit anyway. ħuman

21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It starts into the not WP stuff the second sentence into the article. tmtoulouse 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas actually it should say "not-Conservapedia"? It's a tricky one. I have an axe here - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just had a hack at it. By the way, the intro for n00bs also needs revision so as not to actively repel people who aren't Conservapedia burnouts - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have removed all references to other wikis, but will check further. ħuman

03:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why revert?[edit]

Do you deny that this is true? If it is not, why do so many schools block RationalWiki that don't block Wikipedia or Conservapedia? 76.5.12.65 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Among other things, not the place. Also, WP has just as many, if not more, NSFW content and images than we do, with no disclaimer - who blocks whom is irrelevant. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not founded as a vandal site, nor do they have silly discussions filled with cuss words and sexually oriented jokes like those at the RationalWiki:Saloon bar. 76.5.12.65 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Breakdown!

Wikipedia was not founded as a vandal site

Irrelevant!

nor do they have silly discussions

False!

filled with cuss words and sexually oriented jokes

False again!

like those at the RationalWiki:Saloon bar

Those who attend the saloon bar are almost always in full knowledge of what this site is like. Anyone who goes anywhere on the webz at school or at work goes at their own risk. That's how the internet works. And our talk pages reflect the comments and opinions of individual editors, uncensored except in the case of death threats or personal info. We don't need a warning saying "ZOMG SOME PEOPLE HERE SAY DIRTY THINGS LOL" just because of something not even related to our mainspace articles. Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is a '"cuss" word anyhow. If you can't laff at sex then there's something wrong with you, I find it very amusing. 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not here just to bitch about what goes on at RationalWiki, I just fail to see how stating a fact on the about us page is wrong; if my intent was to make a disclaimer out of it, I would have put it on the main page. You people get defensive over some of the silliest things. DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA! 76.5.12.65 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me that there's only one Drama Queen here and it's you, BoN. Number Six (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Information about Russian section[edit]

I will add an information about Russian section of RW. Nobody against? I will translate it from the page РациоВики#Языковые разделы (RationalWiki — language sections). I think, that this information is significant and it is lead to openness of the Russian section.--Bertran (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast. I think we need to consider the implications of this. I think RW should be left as an English wiki and if someone wants to set up a Russian rationalwiki they can do so, but it should be a separate wiki. I mean the english wikipedia doesn't have random russian pages within it, rather there is a separate Russian wikipedia. I wonder if we have rushed into this foreign languages decision without thinking the implications through. --Damo ^Hi 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. But there were some doubts of significance of the Russian section and it was decided to leave all as it was before: Forum:Other_editions_of_RationalWiki#Articles like Большинство мутаций вредны. Maybe, it needs to return to this talk.--Bertran (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Damo, you apparently missed our big discussion about the Russian section and multiple languages in general. Blue (pester) 22:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this has been going for months now. Try to keep up.

^moral 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But... but... but... The Russians are coming!!! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)