Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

User talk:Blue/archive7

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Your attention, please![edit]

A deletion of a template which you've editted is being discussed at Template talk:Bible. Thought you might want a heads up! DalekEXTERMINATE 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to display this userbox on your userpage! --Oniontalk/edits 03:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Blue Talk 04:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Classical music, you say?[edit]

So, now that we know your favorite operas, who are some of your favorite composers? I will state that I prefer the baroque era of classical music, myself. Bach and Handel being among my favorite composers of that era. Conservative Punk (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think you may rather enjoy this bit of comedy from the late, great Victor Borge. Conservative Punk (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wagner and Saint-Saens occupy hallowed ground for me, and my other favorites are Richard Strauss, Hector Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, late Beethoven, Georges Bizet... I'm a really big Romantic. I didn't mention it in my userpage but I also appreciate John Williams, Howard Shore, Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman's film scores, especially Pirates of the Caribbean, Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, etc... Blue Talk 03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Why is your name blue, Blue? Pointed moment (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two answers: one may be found on my userpage. The other... you'll just have to ponder. Blue Talk 22:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Does it have anything to do with this? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Short answer: no. Long answer: hell no. Blue Talk 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well then what about these guys? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
more like... Blue Talk 22:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


View source on any page and you'll find an embedded javascript section with variables such as wgTitle, wgNamespace, wgIsTalkpage (or something like that) etc. Also never use or /w/index.php or /wiki/ in your script, use the appropriate variables, e.g. wgScriptPath, wgScript, wgArticlePath, etc. -- Nx / talk 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! yeah, I'm not exactly a "pro" at this. Blue Talk 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Is a top level cat for Meta-Categories, Articles requiring attention is already in RationalWiki, which in in Categories. - π 03:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Category:Articles needing expansion should be in both Category:Articles requiring attention and Category:Categories, as it's such an important metacat. Blue Talk 04:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not the level of importance, it is about meta-levels. Like the taxonomical levels. You can't go, I think Capra is such an important genus I am going to stick it in as a phylum along with Chordata. Besides who looks at the Category:categories any way? If you want to draw more attention to it put it on the recent changes text. - π 04:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, I think I'll do that. Blue Talk 04:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

New Met 2010-11 production, yay![edit]

Noticed on your userpage. That show looks like it's going to be pure production pornography... it makes my inner set designer drool. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 06:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate when this happens (me beings so focused on something that I ignore the orange boxen).
Oh yes. I saw Rheingold live in HD a few months ago, there were very few props used - most of the set functions were done by the massive rotating-toothpick machine, which was also an interactive screen or something. Personally, I liked it more than Otto Schenk's lavish old-fashioned production. Blue Talk 03:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Years ago I saw a Macbeth done with virtually no props (one table, and a very long piece of white cloth to symbolize the journey to England) and no set changes (the set was two free walls, each with a door in it). The weird sisters were on stage the whole time. It was a very exhilarating performance, due to the increased tempo. Captain obvious (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)[edit]

That is that is needed betwixt us colo)u(rs! Green (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes...? Hi to you. Blue Talk 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


It, like, requires about 1-2 hours four times a year of barely paying attention. Just in case you thought it was a serious time commitment. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I still don't really feel qualified. Blue Talk 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Remember that I'm on the board. This means the standard is pretty minimal. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 01:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah; well. Maybe eventually. Blue Talk 05:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're not here, but I'll pretend you are[edit]

[1] New3.pngPink(My signature is finally appropriate ^_^) 23:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a name I haven't seen in years. (You might remember me as Lyra.)
I really hope you'll hang around a bit! [Actually, as bribery, I'll sysop you.] Merry Christchristmaschrist! Blue Talk 01:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course I remember you! >:( I decided to come back for a little bit because I was like "Wow, I haven't spoken to Lyra for ages". And because it's Christmas.
I will indeed hang around for a little bit, if only because I've never celebrated Christchristmaschrist before. ^_^ What's it like? New3.pngPink(On a less important note, I can't believe I still have all those vanity titles in my user rights.) 17:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well, I prefer to think of Blue as rather a different editor than Lyra, despite the fact that both are named after literary figures I admire.
But does this mean that you've been lurking? And Christchristmaschrist is part of Stephen Colbert's effort to put the "Christ" back in Christmas, combined with an unusual level of wikintoxication on my part... I don't really observe it, though. I think I'll start celebrating Festivus.
It really was a shame you left, though I confess if I had endured similar treatment I would have LANCB'd right off too. RW needs moar lulz. Blue Talk 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
So tell me what's new with this version of Blue. ^_^
I lurk every now and then. WIGO sometimes interests me, and I vaguely keep up with RW politics. I'm not sure how things work here, but I mostly know who is active or what people have renamed themselves. It's surreal how people I think of as new are now established trusted editors, and everything looks different, and you changed the logo for some reason. :(
I celebrate a non-religious version of Christmas which I call "Christmas".</snark> It's mainly about presents, snow, awesome colour schemes, nostalgia, eating rich food, hugging people, and pretending the world is a nice place to live. New3.pngPink(I miss how things actually used to happen at Conservapedia. Can we start doing that again?) 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the change of logo from the very original to the one with the MRI data forming the brain? Surely you've been here more recently than that! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 03:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the Santa logo? We're just in the Christmas spirit. I'd like to integrate the spirit of Christmas into Festivus.
What's new with Blue? Hmm, I think I've explained this before... let me just quote myself:
I just came across this. Let me just say I was a fucking idiot. I presumed to know much, much more than I really did, and came across as pretentious and obtuse. I'd rip my own pointless ramblings and blatantly wrong accusations (see here, talk:communism, talk:aquatic ape hypothesis, and much more) to shreds, now, with vigor. I've since changed... hopefully.
RW politics are nonexistent. The last things to "happen" were probably the Don't Bite the Newbies Incident, and Humans' pathetically transparent LANCB. I think you should come back, if only sporadically like RA. (: Blue Talk 05:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (Ah, remember our Indent Tower? Good times)
I think I mean what Armondikov said. I meant the brain in the logo. At some point it became a completely different brain, and it saddens me. :( The original one was softer, and I think the brackets were a different size.
In regards to the "I was a fucking idiot." thing, I get that feeling pretty much every day. I wish I could edit past events the way we edit wiki pages. Someone really needs to invent that technology.
I probably will visit sporadically, just to speak to people. I hope not to lose as much of my free time as last time, though. ^_^ New3.pngPink(I definitely remember the Indent Tower. Probably the third silliest thing I did here.) 06:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
About the logo, RationalWiki:History for the short version, RationalWiki talk:Logo brainstorm if you're bored. -- Nx / talk 06:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense, if that technology existed, there'd be alternate quasi-wiki-universes springing up everywhere or something! I think "Time travel invented" would be as bad (or worse) a headline as "Bieberpocalypse" or "Palin-Voldemort sword in."
Well seeing as the percentage of your edits in the mainspace is a dismal 6%, it seems like "just to speak to people" won't be far off from what you were doing before :) Cheers! Eggnog and whiskey? mmmmmmm Blue Talk 07:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Surely you mean to "oversight" past events. :P Most people have a short attention span and (hopefully, I know I do this) don't let shit spill over into threads and pages it doesn't belong in. I.e., if you make an ass of yourself or have a blow out on one talk page or one section, it doesn't exist in another section. At least that's the official policy I've tried to follow, taking every incident, comment and thread on a case-by-case basis rather than tagging a user with a particular thing... anyway, I steer clear of drama enough to never need to think about it.
Anyway, in short, the logo wasn't copyrighted to RW, so it had to change. We're slowly building up this sort of "brand" idea. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the hardness of the current logo over the softness of the old one. I never liked the softness of the old one, it just looked like a badly done render. But obviously I'm biased. -- Nx / talk 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What about my brothers?[edit]

Why aren't 57 and 58 also sysops? It's discrimination. They are just like me. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be brothers but you were given the inferior, recessive genes. -- (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Fuck off, stupid pig. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd quite forgotten about 57 and 58. If they become active again, I don't see what's stopping their demotion. Blue Talk 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue, my only love![edit]

Please let me pour you over with some marvelous pottery... very soon! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to de-sysop you and remove Blue's crat bit when I get back to a computer. Cheers. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Nutty, sorry for not adequately explaining myself, but you don't have to go be a prick about it. I figure 59 isn't doing any harm, and requirements for sysopship are so lax, so... Blue Talk 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The latter should probably be discussed somewhere far away from the heat of this issue. As in the "lax requirements". Sysopship should at least mean more than "something for crats to do when they are bored". ħumanUser talk:Human 08:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Who asked for your opinion anyway, Mr. Know-It-All? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It's funny, a few days ago Several ingredients warned the idiot and then he was told off. Make up your mind already. -- Nx / talk 13:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And looking at the user rights log for Blue, she promoted herself, but was then demoted back by Weaseloid. I interpret that as meaning the temporary arrangement ended then. Per RationalWiki:Bureaucrat guide#Demotion, voting is not required, only recommended, for bureaucrats, so it was within Weaseloid's rights to demote her to bureaucrat, and your reason for promoting Blue is invalid. </wikilawyering> I'm not going to wheel war over this though. Blue, if you want your crat bit back, please start a new section at RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations -- Nx / talk 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Crat thing[edit]

I think you went over the line a bit with the wheel warring over idiot number "who cares".

Sorry, but for now I think the place is better off without sysop comments like these. I still love you, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I am retiring from RationalWiki. No, this is not butthurt from getting promoted. It is a recognition of the fact that RationalWiki currently does not want to become better. It does not focus on being improved. Some, like Nx and Armondikov, are trying to move it in a new direction, but have not made much progress. In my time here I have facilitated and spearheaded some very big improvements, but that did not endear me to anyone. Lest I be too harsh, (this is partially butthurt) I might say that I do not think RationalWiki will ever grow; it reached its zenith sometime last year, and it is on a course to slowly fade. Wikipedia can and should grow to encompass all of the proper content on this wiki. Am I being a bitch? Whatfuckingever.
Best I've got right now, I think I'll throw up an RA-style parting shot on my userpage sometime soon, where I can address people individually. Cheers! Blue Talk 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC) And Human, fuck off, as the poets say.
Tend to agree. 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Actionable criticism[edit]

I am willing to listen, if your willing to give me some feedback that is actionable. What are specific things that should not be done, that should be done, that would have made your time here better? The problem right now is that your describing a vague subjective experience that differs considerably from mine and thus makes it difficult for me to see what should/could be changed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we've all done it before :) As someone who certainly wasn't part of the RW 1.0 crowd I can sympathise; the earlier days of RW were chaotic and anarchic and even less focused on the mission objectives than now. Even though those times are well behind us and only lasted for a fraction of RW's total lifespan, those founding principles can still be felt and are difficult to shake. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Like everyone else, I have always had great respect for you, Trent, and I would be honored to provide feedback or actionable criticism. But there is the beginning of some great discussion going on at RWW of all places, and I think that instead of a two-way dialogue, an open discussion would be the best way for ideas to be voiced and to gauge their potential. Blue Talk 20:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)