User:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki Treehouse archive 5

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Why did he LANCB? Liveware Problem 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

there was a debate about rationality and faith that was the last thing he wrote on. Rrose Selavy 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(still watching RW and RWW seems like a good idea now) Because it's not fun anymore and there are too many jackasses running around spitting in everybodies soup on daily basis. I had two reasons to come here in the first place, the first was to mock CP the second to improve the philosophy stuff and get more philosophic thought into it. I've realized that for the first I don't need RW and second is hopeless cause considering how high the rate of sicentists is there. And because pretty much everybody has annoyed me the last few weeks my "fuck you" goes out to everybody. And btw, can somebody strip me of my rights, I don't want my account to get abused (RW and RWW). --Ullhateme 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well fuck you too. You won't be missed. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Good fucking riddance. 23:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey UHM, I think you raised some interesting points in that essay, as I mentioned on its Talk page. I think you are right that trying to add serious content to RW is problematic, there are some editors who aren't interested in contributing to any topic seriously, just in causing pain and drama. On the other hand, there are also serious, thoughtful, rational people. It's a pitty that many times the first group overpowers and drowns out the second. Your decision whether to stay or go, of course... Maratrean 01:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the ratio of drama queens at RationalWiki has gone through the roof as of late. Which is why I've become more scarce there; I was afraid that I, too, was becoming a drama queen. Thus I am taking a Wiki editing break until I can think of something new to add to RW and RWW. Last thing on Earth I need is to join in the fighting. Punky McPunkersen 16:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Iced coffee[edit]

As I am a relative N00B when it comes to coffee drinking, I was wondering if anybody here knew how to make a good iced coffee? It's summer now, so all this hot coffee I've been drinking no longer is appropriate for me when it's 90 degrees outside. So, who can help me out? Thanks. Punky McPunkersen 15:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

90 degrees Fahrenheit = 32 degrees Celsius. SecretMetricationAgent 21:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
90 degrees Fahrenheit = 32 degrees Celsius = 305.15 kelvin SecretScientificficationAgent 11:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could help, but I hated iced coffee. I prefer my coffee temperature at, say, 110 degrees or hotter. Conficker 21:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
110 degrees Fahrenheit = 43 degrees Celsius. SecretMetricationAgent 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
110 degrees Fahrenheit = 43 degrees Celsius = 316.15 kelvin SecretScientificficationAgent 11:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Look in the grocery store for some stuff called NO brew or Cool Brew. Add to milk. Add blended Ice. Add sugar/Ovalitine/Protein powder/Instant breakfast to taste. Failing that, just ice your regular coffee. I've been living of the stuff this summer, it's a record drought down here. Ty 02:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I make a small amount of overstrong hot coffee, put it in a blender with a pile of ice and a little sugar and blend away until I have slush. I add some milk (about the same proportion as I would have in a hot coffee, or maybe a bit more), blend some more and bingo. It's much thicker than ordinary iced coffee (being slush), and will freeze your brain in 2.6 seconds if you do more than sip, but it certainly does the trick. Left on its own, it takes hours to melt, and that's in South East Queensland summer (high 30s to low 40s Celsius). LowKey 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Make some very strong black coffee (proper coffee not instant crap) with sugar if you want it, & cool it in the fridge. Mix it with a lot of cold milk (about half coffee, half milk) and some ice (crushed or cubed). If you want it frothy, just whisk the milk & coffee or shake the hell out of it in a sealed bottle before adding the ice. That's how I make it; probably not the conventional way but who cares. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Schweet. Thanks all for the iced coffee suggestions. Punky McPunkersen 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Using Conservaleaks as a source for real names and locations.[edit]

Not cool. Totally stalkerish behavior. Knock it off. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 03:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Conservaleaks != RW. Come to think of it, the concept of Conservaleaks just sounds stalkerish. Ty 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I think using Conservaleaks to refer to things involving Conservaleaks is probably the only appropriate use of the information contained there in. Otherwise, they have no use outside of Talk WIGO CP on RationalWiki and certainly have nothing to do with the mission here. And, as Ty already said, the concept itself is stalker-sounding. And we've recently decided to tone down some of the more stalkerish aspects of this site. Punky McPunkersen 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do we go from here....[edit]

Bluntly, I fucked up royally in trying to take the HCM that flooded this place by the horns and be the sole person trying to moderate it. SO, where do we go from here? Well, I think that we should continue to focus on the original mission at hand, but have more concentration on what people actually do that affects the Wiki (for example: So and so broke the Wiki and Trent had to fix it) than if Human is 60 or 61 years old. I'd like to see a larger focus on quality on this Wiki over quantity. This includes me taking the stick out of my ass about criticism of RW on this Wiki, so long as that criticism is either snarky or constructive, as the only reason I acted up in the first place was because of things I will not reveal here. The single greatest issue at hand, and the elephant in the room, is that this site has finally reached the stage where we need a form of dispute resolution system. Here, I am open to anything that isn't the chaotic system it is now. I most certainly refuse, and do not wish to be, the sole arbitrary body here, because it is impossible for me to resolve any disputes in a manner that won't seem like I'm being biased. I'd rather this place function like a community and, to that extent, a democracy or even a mobocracy over the quasi-monoarchy we seem to have dissolved into. None of this was any one persons' fault. But the fact is that this place needs to thrive again, and the best way to do it is to open up the discourse here again, return to our mission at hand, change our community a little, and over all, breathe more fresh air into this place. Punky McPunkersen 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's get back to the CS drafts, and start being critical! Ty 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Considering that information written into RWW may be somewhat sensitive or controversial - particularly when it comes to unwarranted criticism or the revealing of personal information - it may be worth enacting a system closer to that of Citizendium where you can contribute what you like, but a group of experienced people have final editorial say over content. Perhaps rules similar to BLP laws on Wikipedia - people bring up points on the talk page and the editors write it up in the article in the manner determined by a manual of style and in keeping with the ethos of the site. Or similarly, a request to add can be denied. This sort of thing wouldn't work on RW for much the same reason it has failed at CZ, but RWW is the right scale and scope to benefit from such a system. People would be prevented from editing articles just to bitch, although people can whine on discussion pages for so long as people have the time of day to give them. I wouldn't bother with anything as complex as electing editors, just select the people you personally trust and have a semi-formal rule about these editors being disinterested in the subject they're writing about - i.e., don't edit your own article or write a section about a RW spat you were involved in and so on. Don't worry about writing up community standards as that's just extra information to read and then subsequently forget and/or ignore (the main reason "community standards" doesn't currently work on RW is because it's a fluid, ad hoc document that is constantly being fought over in pedantic detail... and plain and simply put, it's tl;dr that could happily be replaced by "don't be a dick" for all it's worth).
That said, I'm not opposed to the quasi-monarchy on the grounds that the RW (and by extension RWW) community needs more people like His Royal Punkiness, and I'd happily sacrifice democracy for a competent dictator. But I agree that you probably don't want the responsibility on your shoulders and yours alone. Armondikov 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you be willing to serve on this hypothetical board of editors? Ty 14:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that would cause people to kick the fuck off big time. Armondikov 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt they'd treat you any worse than they treat me, and FWIW the people here seem to have liked you, in our own way. Ty 14:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There are people that have been more annoying, more disruptive and more counter-productive.. but to skip to the punchline of an old joke "...but you shag just ONE sheep!" Armondikov 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh relax. Ty 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think having Goonie as the final say on matters of disputes is not the best idea because we, generally speaking, are a community here. I don't think anyone should be allowed to act so arbitrarily as to be the person. What needs to happen is we need to set up a system of conflict resolution similar to the so-called "Chicken Coop" but that is more binding and where stupid bullshit like that which plagues the current Coop isn't allowed. For example, a system where misbehaving actually has consequences greater than "So and so should really stop doing that" and where stuff like "I'm bringing John Doe to the abuse page because they reverted me and I don't want to use the talkpage to discuss the content" is also not allowed and/or moved to the appropriate pages. Conficker 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, he cannot be here all the time. Nobody can. A serious coop could work though. Ty 11:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant quote[edit]

All this talk about electing moderators and editors and trustees and everything, and suddenly I see this quote from Nassim Taleb:

"Most people think that democracy is the result of people wishing to take control through voting; nobody considers that democracy can just be the side effect of people liking to vote in elections."

When you think about it, I'm pretty sure that's true. Armondikov 22:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We have lots of pointless voting. We should vote on that. Ty 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
But first, let us have a debate as to what methods of voting should be used, followed by one of when we should set deadline for the voting, then how many candidates(which should be voted upon), then what we should call them, then on what they do, then someone comes along whining about authoritarianism, then we vote as to how we will nominate them, who shall be eligible, and for how long the position will occur... Ty 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wanted profile(s)[edit]

Anyone willing to write about this guy? Seems to produce only geekcruft and it bugs me.--Burzum 12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GastonRabbit I'll see what I can do.Ty 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so he has an article and I wasn't able to find it... Time for tea. Strong tea.--Burzum 13:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What the?[edit]

RW just suddenly gave me a "having technical difficulties message? Anybody else getting this? Ty 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, server went down for like 2 minutes. Never mind. Ty 23:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikis been wacky for me lately. Text that is clearly in the source doesn't show up on the page, I get internal server errors, I can't figure out how to create a page all of a sudden... Whether it's TOW, ED, or CP, I'm having trouble with wikis all of a sudden--Brxbrx 00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Poorly-written, schizophrenic article[edit]

Why am I seeing this header in edit summaries everywhere but never actual pages? Am I losing it? Of late, it seems Genghis Khant and Lily's summaries contain this non-existant section. Wtf is going on?--Brxbrx 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that file uploading doesn't work, and that SUBST: sigs don't work either... Ty 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
But I think I've seen it before--Brxbrx 18:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The actual section is located here, I have no idea why this is happening. -- Nx / talk 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing files and SUBST btw. :) Ty 18:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Anything in the /* */ of the edit summary renders like the section title. So it could be glitching and copying the wrong thing in (a local issue?) or people are playing silly buggers by doing it manually. Armondikov 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It's happening to you now, btw. Apparently Lily was just playing though. Ty 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That was intentional to see if it did what I thought it would. Just put anything you like inside /* */. As MW edits an entire page at once, it doesn't really know that you just edited a section - that seems to be convenience for when calling up only certain portions of the code into the editor. So the edit summary has /* */ to format it like a section edit and loads the section title into that automatically. It's therefore possible to change the section easily. Armondikov 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, back to my original theory that Genghis's browser is acting up because he edited the section on Talk:Homeschooling. -- Nx / talk 19:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming those headers and formatting are inserted into the editor locally, that's likely. Probably a good old fashioned purge would solve it. Armondikov 19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
They're not, but the browser can still screw it up, my guess is autocomplete going crazy. -- Nx / talk 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Makes me wonder if you can use more than one grey piece of text...
No. I've learned something today. Armondikov 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If somebody knows who this BoN is.....[edit]

This guy, right here (yes, it's a proxy), please find them and tell them to come talk to me. I very much would like to hear what they have to say. If this BoN is you, same thing. That is all. Punky McPunkersen 10:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

so some troll comes along and blasts people for their hobby. big deal. If you're post-Conservapedia there're better ways to share.--Brxbrx 13:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Better? Maybe. More drunken ways to share? Doubtful. Punky McPunkersen