User:HuskyHarlot/sandbox/Archive 1

Welcome

This is a friendly hello.

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, HuskyHarlot/sandbox! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

PacWalker 03:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello to you and thank you. Sarah (HH) 03:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In other words, don't make a mess, don't discuss any tiny body parts outside the inner ear, and don't link to ED/AE/whatever. PacWalker 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Or more of a mess, since someone with a startlingly similar username who coincidentally also called herself Sarah kinda spawned a coop case. PacWalker 04:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys seem pretty cool, not like wikipedia they're a bag of dicks. I had to get out of that situation. Anyway, I think a lot of your content is BS but I respect your coolness so I will respect your site. Peace. Sarah (HH) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmkay... I mean no comment on Wikipedia from this corner, but as for here, don't make a mess and I'll try not to presume you're the same person that made the last ongoing mess. PacWalker 04:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The minor edit flag

We use it for grammatical corrections, formatting, etc., not the addition or significant revision of content. Not a huge deal, but seeing "m (+345)" on recent changes raises eyebrows/suspicions. PacWalker 18:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Grammar/formatting corrections only, Roger, loud and clear. Sarah (HH) 18:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't mark edits as "minor" unless it's literally fixing a comma or something similar. A minor edit can be considered anything that doesn't change what's written, just how it's presented. Formatting, spelling, grammar, structuring, syntax, synonym substitution: it's a judgement call, but if a word is added or removed, you're better off leaving that box unchecked. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I never use it because every edit I make is of major significance. (Nah, I'm just lazy.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt

He is a RW old timer, and can unblock himself if he feels like it. We love him, and hope he can find it in his heart to reciprocate. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You all have the funniest usernames here. Sarah (HH) 17:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, mine makes total sense. Walker Walker Walker is what Pac-Man says, after all. PacWalker 17:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought this what say joke bear on puppet show. No? In Russia we have no joke bear only serious bear :( Sahrochka (HH) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fozzie? PacWalker 17:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ayyyy Mrs C.! Good television. Sarah (HH) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Userpage

If it is making other users uncomfortable, you should probably change it. I am aware that you were not politely requested to change it before, but this is one now. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for asking politely. The thing about that is dude's userpage is making me uncomfortable, only difference is I can't block people. So where does that leave us? Sarah (HH) 14:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that you haven't responded to a polite request by changing your userpage, what you would expect "is dude" to do? Hipocrite (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh also you reverted my change on the GG Timeline - that's cool but what was the reason? I put it back with a solid cite but again I wasn't sure about the reason you reverted so I don't know if the cite makes it better. Good? Sarah (HH) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that it's ambiguous language. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hard to argue against increased specificity. The problem is now it says "nearly all of the tweets [were] Gamergaters" and "other[s] were troll group" - but that's not what the source says. It says most of them were troll group. Even buzzfeed added a disclaimer to their article basically retracting it. See "UPDATE" Sarah (HH) 14:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The disclaimer was about the interviewees. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, seeing as you hadn't adequately responded to the request a month ago and abided by it, I deleted it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not obliged to update it. Either you can restore it or I can initiate a process that will not help your standing here to have it restored. Ultimately the result for me will be the same. Sarah (HH) 05:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Restore all of its revisions. Sarah (HH)

Change it now that it's completely restored.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are abusive. Stay off my page. Sarah (HH) 05:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No and no. Also you can't vote for my desysopping until July 10.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also you really need to remember to hit that 4th tilde.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Say Sarah, does this Oh My User thing have some connection to Oh My Internet perchance? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that is but "Oh my user" is a line from Tron. Sarah (HH) 05:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My knowledge of classic pop culture is pretty shaky. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Added to autropatrolled

I added you to auto patrol, you've been good over the past month, and i was really annoyed with the exclamations. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what any of that means but thank you? Sarah (HH) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It means taht your posts arn't marked for sysops, it means that your trusted, and dont need to be scrutinized as much, it also removes annoying red !. Also it is the first step to being demoted to sysop. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Awws yeah, more responsibility is exactly what I'm looking for - AND it's uncompensated? Where do I sign? :) Solid though, thx. Sarah (HH) 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Check teh saloon somone made a list, ill have to check your edits further but you look good so far, ill let someone else check it out though. well mabye Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I will search for this saloon. Seriously though, I don't know what I'd do with sysop privileges really. I guess I could unblock myself if I get blocked, but I'd rather just not get blocked in the first place. Anyway, if it's some sort of civic responsibility here (like voting, #Bernie2016) I will accept it. Sarah (HH) 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is right on teh sidebar Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 20:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Found the list, thanks. Too soon for me though, let me contribute at least a bit here before you all give me the power to crush my enemies or uh, prevent vandalism, whatever. Sarah (HH) 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Single Topic

Your edits seem to be focused on a single topic. Why is this? --Castaigne (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

*hint hint wink wink nudge nudge* but really, you should see what all you can work on in other topics too; we can always use help. PacWalker 22:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I have fewer than a dozen edits - testing the waters, so far so good. I'm going to assume this wasn't personal and you uh deliver the same message to all editors focused on a single topic. Sarah (HH) 23:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(no, he doesn't) But really, you should try some of the other waters too; they're (mostly) much calmer. PacWalker 00:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Except from what I've read my edits in other areas wouldn't be significantly less contentious. I was disappointed to find you didn't have a page on Bernie Sanders but creating a wiki-compliant article from scratch is probably beyond my skill level. I'll keep browsing though. Sarah (HH) 00:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day that is your call I suppose. Hopefully some of the general animosity about... everything... you've seen lately will simmer down in time. PacWalker 00:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Bernie Sanders... He (now) has a page, and it could use some love, if you're so inclined. PacWalker 23:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks :) I'm going to review some other RW BLPs to get a feel for how you all do them - then I'll start hacking. Sarah (HH) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

～～～～

Sign your damn posts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Refactoring"

As you can see here there has been no functional change to your comments, but plenty to mine and Player 03's. The threaded discussion is now in a more chronological order to offset the intentional act of pushing everything I've said to you further down the page as if to ignore me completely. Also, the indents were getting out of control.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop this. I'm only trying to make everything more legible because it seems that everything I've said to you was pushed further and further away from the actual contextual discussion that they belonged to. Please stop reverting me and removing the post where I call you out on the thing you've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop it. I've not refactored any of your posts as you claim I've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop reverting because you're also erasing comments and edits I've made in general.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Then re-add them preserving the initial order. Sarah (HH) 06:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I've originally done. You're the one who screwed up the order by replying above me each and every time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Engaging in a revert war while screaming that others should act more mature and "grow up" is hilariously ironic. Typhoon (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Excerpt of an interesting discussion

* the text below was copied from Talk:Gamergate

Deconverting gamergaters?

I should have posted this as a separate section in the first place, but oh well.

Some people get caught up in Gamergate because they hear one side of the story, and legitimately believe they're the good guys. To quote Natalie Zed, "I've had conversations with people who genuinely feel that there's not a place for them and they think that this thing that has always been a place for them is somehow being taken away. It's really gutting to see how much pain there is behind that hostility." Note: she said this despite being targeted by the movement.

RationalWiki has a section aimed at the (relatively) small number of people who fell for Roko's Basilisk. Why not something similar for Gamergate? I'll get started writing that up tomorrow, unless someone can suggest a reason it won't work. Player 03 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do try. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Most people that do "deconvert" are members of marginalized communities already who realize how much Gamergate doesn't care about them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this already the point of the list of Gamergate claims article? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem there is that people don't respond well to open hostility. Looks like a good reference, though. Player 03 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a Gamergater - attempts at "deconversion" are pointless. I don't play video games, I'm not particularly interested in video game review sites (which one can reasonably expect to be as biased as any ad-sponsored product review sites.) This may have begun with gamers but non-gamers are now the majority. For most of us it's an issue of (a) opposition to authoritarianism and the suppression of ideas, which, unless you sufficiently refute "On Liberty" has little chance of success - and if you do, please publish. (b) The ideal of a strict meritocracy independent of qualifiers, which the internet and anonymity have brought us. And (c) an understanding of media bias, conscious and unconscious. For that I'd refer you to "Manufacturing Consent" although I wish Chomsky would update it for the digital age. Those fundamental beliefs and the ability to recognize media bias cannot be "undone."

I'm interested in understanding you however. Not your perspective, which I'm familiar with, but what makes you - which I don't believe you can answer. I suspect the same motivations that drove man to embrace religion are still present, but with religion's decline now focused on other equally rigid ideologies. At first I ascribed it to insufficient rationality (ironic in context) but I now believe you're rational within the framework of a different perhaps intrinsic calculus. As to who will win, inevitably it will become a question of numbers and the example of atheism+ doesn't bode well for your side. In the meantime, I'll continue to observe and explore those ideas. Sarah (HH) 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's libertarianism vs. whatever isn't libertarianism?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't identify as a libertarian. I'm actively involved in the Sanders campaign for example. If you want to quantify it: months ago we ran a "political compass" test. [1] The results were in line with most Gamergaters I know personally and the views I see represented in our forums. [2] The fight between GG and anti-GG is along the y-axis. This is not a left/right battle. Sarah (HH) 03:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the top of that y-axis is termed "libertarian", ya know. What seems odd to me is why people with seemingly valid anti-authoritarian anti-rigid-ideologies views would choose to congregate as a group around a misogynist internet manufactroversy concerning Zoe Quinn. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's about those who want ethics in video game journalism, those who support those who want ethics in video games journalism, and those who oppose those who oppose those who want ethics in video game journalism. It's not straightforward and has grown into something much greater than what it began as.

For most of us, the details of Ms Quinn's life are uninteresting. If the gossip had been left to die a natural death it would have died quickly. What attracted our attention was the broad and coordinated campaign to suppress discussion. The nature of that discussion was never relevant, just that it be allowed to exist. Sarah (HH)

As I understand it, people weren't coordinating to censor discussion, they were coordinating to stop all the doxxing. Certainly, that's why the topic was banned on 4chan. Do you really think that Zoe Quinn had that much influence over that many sites? Seems more reasonable that each site individually saw something wrong with the "discussion," and made the independent decision to ban it. Player 03 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Censoring dox is fine. The goal was to censor discussion completely. Read the emails and judge for yourself (a) whether that was the case and (b) whether it was coordinated. If you're familiar with games journalism you'll recognize these names: http://imgur.com/iA8SNBJ ^{— Unsigned, by: HuskyHarlot / talk / contribs}

Looks like The Escapist's staff went back and forth, educated a newbie mod or two, and ended up leaving the thread up. Adding that link to my anti-GG bookmarks. Player 03 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The exchange is among (mostly senior) employees of various websites with forums censoring any discussion of Quinn: Polygon, GamePolitics, DailyDot - all except Tito at the Escapist favored it, for which we gave him credit. You questioned whether there was a coordinated effort to censor discussion. I hope I've answered that question. Sarah (HH) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I misread it the first time through. Oops!

This does indeed change my view, if only by a small amount. It's still not "a coordinated effort to censor discussion." Coordinated, yes. Censorship, yes, even though they wouldn't want to use that word. But it wasn't about censoring discussion. It was about censoring harassment. They saw it as harassment, and they wanted to get rid of it because of the perceived harassment. (Also, if you've ever asked friends privately for advice, you have no right to criticize them for doing the same.) Player 03 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your open mindedness. I promise in return to thoughtfully consider your points before responding.

Harassment is difficult to define, there is no bright-line test. If someone tweets "Miscegenation is an affront to God!" and thousands reply with pictures of smiling interracial couples, is that harassment? At the very least I would say harassment is something done to you. If I were to follow you around and comment "Player 03 is a jerk" that would be harassment. If I post it on my user talk page, even repeatedly, it would not; you can easily avoid my user talk page. If I post it on a different website entirely it certainly wouldn't be. So I can't believe simply talking about Ms Quinn is harassment. Talking to her may be, depending on the circumstances, but that wasn't the extent of their censorship.

Regarding my criticism of these journalists or the existence of the mailing list. My argument is not that they committed a fundamental moral violation, rather they committed an ethical violation, specific to their profession. For good reason journalists are obliged to maintain distance between colleagues (inter-publication), and between journalist and subject. These emails and several more show they did not. But even that is not a mortal sin. The mortal sin was rather than acknowledge these (arguably minor) misdeeds, they responded with a disinformation campaign using the power of their positions to deflect criticism. Suddenly the story became not that we were critical of one woman for specific actions, but that we were misogynists who wanted all women out of gaming, that "gamers" were no longer relevant as an audience. That narrative still prevails but neither claim has any relevance to our fundamental complaints: that we be allowed to discuss collusion in the games press in general and in Ms Quinn's case in particular. In this case, as in Ms Quinn's case, it was not the initial incident that earned our condemnation but their response to it. I don't know whether Adam Baldwin recognized this when he coined the term "Gamergate" but the comparison to Watergate in that regard is apt. Sarah (HH) 05:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So...

You just copied and pasted the thread without any of my responses to you that I had interspersed throughout? Good job showing I was "BTFO".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)