User talk:David Gerard/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 21 January 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, David Gerard! 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!

Are you perhaps related to Netherlandish painter Gerard David? Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

No, but I now beat him in Google for a search on my own name ;-) - David Gerard 19:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to the Dollhouse! Are you that David Gerard? ħψɱɐ₦ 14:30, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm this one :-) - David Gerard 06:24, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

That's what I thought... you're quite famous in certain circles, eh? Nice to see you here. ħuman 15:35, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

I hope this isn't intrusive, but do you manage living with a wife and girlfriend? One of either is more than enough for most. Thunderkatz^Ho! 16:00, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

MY SUPERIOR RATIONALITY. (And saying "yes, dear" a lot.) - David Gerard 16:01, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Head swelling power

Use your new powers with extreme prejudice. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ace, you spelled "abuse" wrong. There's an "ab" at the beginning. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

o_0 I told my girlfriend, who is a Christian. She knows there's no way she'll ever stop me being a dick about religion now - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming first in a Google search for one's name

Let's start a club! Professor Moriarty 21:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crud

You've been here for over a year and a half? I just saw you today and thought you were new here! : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On and off, mostly off :-) - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're probably not very familiar with wiki-editing. I know how that is. I will give you lessons. TO MAKE SOMETHING A LINK YOU PUT TWO BRACKETS AROUND IT. LIKE [[THIS]]. That is your first lesson. You're welcome.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 12:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! How did you make it go red like that? - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I like that you have a wife, a girlfiend, and some assorted cats in what I assume to be the same place. Your blog looks cool. 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Turing machine

My life is now filled with an unfulfillable desire for one of those. I hope you're happy. Cubic stupid Phantom Hoover! 09:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job!

Pat on the back for your creation of the Mensa and Dunning-Kruger effect‎ articles. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 02:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nice work. I copied my snark, but saw the new link. ħuman 02:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Where you were in Wikipedia

Tracked it down: you were editing Talk:Citizendium. And I see you're still in CZ too, though it didn't detain you for long. Ro Thorpe (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited a few pages there, but mostly couldn't be bothered, I didn't actually leave as such - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Just sayin' hey. rational ghey (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

COWER BEFORE MY MIGHT, MORTAL. I mean, hi! - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

=) I see you've been at WP for a while as well as experience some sysopperiness there. Just wondering if it's just like here or what and what you personally make of the WP. :P rational ghey (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am part of the Sekrit Kabal that apparently runs the place. News to me. But my phone number is publicly available so people in the UK can annoy me for Wikipedia-related press quotes. Of late I've only gotten Nigerian scammers call me. Yes, really. - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

SIDE note: lmfao! rational ghey (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And on the SAME DAY as he UNILATERALLY BOMBED THE MOON - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

you like it here

I know you do. We're fun to hang with. You like us. You might even think or agree that Mei is useful. Come on, you like us ;) ħuman 07:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been on a RationalWiki binge for a few days, yes indeed. I expect it'll pass. But gems like How come there are still monkeys? are just irreplaceable - David Gerard (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes one gets bored of dreaming in encyclopedia-speak. Sometimes one wants to get in touch with their inner monkey. On rationalwiki one can explore that voice. It's nice to have you around. ħuman 07:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the lure of somewhere to be an Arrogant Arsehole Atheist - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not a number ...

... but you are - number 46 that is. (Ed's in at 65) (HT) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

There should be a userbox for that - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you try not to do that?

I mean, erasing a bunch of people's comments? Not cool. P-Foster (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Entirely error on my part, I assure you - David Gerard (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Carry on, then, sir! P-Foster (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

you know

... I was being sarcastic right? rational ghey (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ENTIRELY HETEROSEXUAL COCK IN MY MOUTH - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

omg. lol rational ghey (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I AM PROGRESSING FAAAAABULOUSLY QUITE WELL THANK YOU - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

HAHA Did you see the southpark episode on that? rational ghey (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Acting properly?

Don't want to put words into your mouth or anything, but given the rest of your comment did you mean "acting properly" or "improperly"? alt (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, improperly! - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fillmore, not the venue

Nice work, and thanks for preserving the links to my ancient (2005) work. You are indeed an asset to this site! ħuman 07:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I like you. And I think it's cool you met Jimmy Wales. --rational ghey (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is a smart guy, but his greatest achievement was working out how to surround himself with people so alarmingly smart they make him feel dumb - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean like Bill Clinton (feels nostalgic) ? I love being around smart people myself :p but that's off topic. --rational ghey (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's two kinds of employers/bosses - ones who surround themselves with people who make them feel smart, and ones who surround themselves with people who make them feel stupid. Guess who succeeds? ħuman 02:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said

You're awesome. That's really interesting. I didn't realize it was that prehistoric. rational ghey (send a message) 00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither did I till I Googled it! I knew the five fingers thing was well before mammals, with a lot of fish having five whatevers holding their fins up ... - David Gerard (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My childhood cat disagrees. ħuman 02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey David...

I don't care what everyone else says. I think you're okay. Keep doing what you're doing. P-Foster (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

reminds me of how you gained my trust, only to stab me in the back while I was plowing that cheap whore. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what you call me behind my back, Neveruse? I'm glad I short changed you, you bastard. SJ ^Debaser 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

LessWrong

'Tis done. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Win! *pint* - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Cheers for that link, I've added it to the relevant article. 'Tis hilarious, but so true about how the media react to that sort of thing. ^gnostic 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything before the second-last paragraph is a real news story - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I recognised them. It's often quite convincing in the news itself, but when you track down the actual papers it's less impressive and more often than not it's actually just a publicity stunt. ^gnostic 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Metro is a very special and worthless newspaper given free to sleep-deprived commuters - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Ok, I admit to not being a native english speaker. But hey at least I am trying. :P Sen (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise! I shall be less poopy when copyediting :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Fuckin' hell David, you really are going at it with Twitter. I'm simultaneously impressed and somewhat concerned. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My laptop overheated and shut down around 2am. I decided sleep might be a good idea then - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Crat

Apparently I made you a bureaucrat. Congratulations for your cojh FUCIT I'm drubk you are ar3e cool. ħuman 08:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this decision and/or event. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we decide to vote on such demotions?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I voted on Thursday and there's still a dull ache - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Human is exempt from such petty things as voting It's his wiki, after all. 10:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats David. Welcome to the cabal liberal elitists gentlemen's club cratshipnesseusseussnessmussshush. SJ ^Debaser 10:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just that after the last debate about cratting people who somebody we happened to like we tightened up the rulez.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Human is exempt from such petty things as voting rules It's his wiki, after all. 11:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm. This "Human is above the rulz" meme may be unfortunate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not so much a meme as an MO. - π 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are worse people to hand control of the wiki over to. Anonymous User for example. That wily minx would tear the site apart in a heartbeat if they got the chance. SJ ^Debaser 12:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true, I can do just as bad a job as the next guy. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Caught one Josh, and what a lovely one to catch. 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Rob, I didn't know you saw yourself as a "wily minx." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The polite fiction is the "mob" is in control. - π 12:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you seems Humans face? He has a giant mob hanging from his chin. Aceⁱ⁹ 12:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"moobocracy - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Even though I thought we were supposed to vote on such demotions, I think that having you as a 'crat is one heck of a good idea in light of some of your actions related to this Wiki. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but if it's such an obviously good idea then why not do it in a legitimate manner? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you Bob. I agree that I thought it should be put to a vote. But also, if a vote were held, I'd vote in the affirmative. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 19:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if a vote had been held I would have voted against on the basis that we don't need any more crats. Do we need more crats? Or is the suggestion that that crat is a "better class of user"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If we have too many crats, why not promote some? -- Nx / talk 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Per your suggestion, I have called a vote. And if your on;y concern is that we already have too many 'crats, then I'd gladly give up my 'cratship, since I am of the opinion that David Gerard is a more useful editor to this Wiki than I am. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the "we have too many crats" complaint is meaningless. We had a debate about this a while ago (Forum:bureaucratship), but nothing came out of that. -- Nx / talk 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have two issues. The first - and most important - being that we have a process for creating crats which has not been followed. My secondary objection - which I raised in response to the implicit question "How would you have voted?" - is that I would have objected to the creation of this (or probably any) new crat.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first objection, but do not agree with your second one. How many is too many, and why is it too many?

In this case I am indifferent because David didn't ask for it, but otherwise I would strongly support him. -- Nx / talk 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you agree with my primary objection that's cool. The place for the secondary objection is elsewhere.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've induced a HCM! Without even doing anything! \o/ - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry David. This is nowhere near HCM. Ah, those were the days!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My bureaucratization was what made people realize that perhaps discussing first instead of letting a random crat decide on their own would be a good idea. So there. -- Nx / talk 21:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Congrats!!! Super Josh... uh wth. rational ghey (send a message) 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just curious. Are deleted contribs on RW here the same as they are on Wikipedia? Ie, deleted contribs are only those on pages which are deleted? Thanks, rational ghey (send a message) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure! I know on WP you can have pages which exist but have some revs deleted - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's called RevisionDelete, and we have it too. Deleted contribs only shows fully deleted pages (which are stored in a separate table in the database). Deleted and suppressed revisions are shown among normal contribs, e.g. Special:Contributions/212.235.107.57 (they are stored in the same table as normal revisions, but have a flag set to indicate that they are deleted) -- Nx / talk 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yea, but I was wondering if Wikipedia's use of deleted contribs are the same as they are here on RW. I have a feeling no. Actually I was wondering if Wikipedia considers simply deleting material and adding nothing as a deleted contrib? rational ghey (send a message) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

To your last, I suspect "no". ħuman 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Remotion in locomotion!!!

I've re-made you a Bureacrat due to, what appears to be, a lack of votes in the last 48 hours, leaving you still in the lead on the pro-'crat side. Here, again, is your Manual of style. Peace!!! Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 06:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I do solemnly swear to use the curse of my newfound powers only for good evil, and not for evil evil - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"I pushed Cryonics to its present heights and am quite proud of it." That's part of what made me go my cratting binge with you. It was such excellent work. And then, you displayed full understanding of the goat, and the deal was sealed. Congratulations, as the song goes. ħuman 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the asterisk at the bottom, you are allowed to use your powers for evil evil. The only stipulation is that you not get caught. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that explains a lot.

Now we know why their conversations are lacking in alcohol. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear Dawkins, that's perfect - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine some of them see the poll results as a good thing. What's even funnier, though, is if you scroll down to the comments they start quibbling over the statistical significance of the results. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Their discussion is entirely rational, as are the tools they bring to it, and there's no rationalisation or self-justification going on there at all. Really really really - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow... the guy who set the survey said no one scored less than 10 on the AQ test. Um, the survey starts at "10 or less" so how can he tell? PS, I got a 10. I also enjoyed "Aspbergers Syndrome" which the header of the survey thank you page. ħuman 22:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Content dump

You had expressed interest in a rationalwiki:Content dumps. Is this what you are after, or something different? tmtoulouse 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Current article XML is a damn fine start, thank you :-) I'll play with this in shortish order ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pasted on user page

Hi David, I suspect that wp may be lowballing the numbers of deaths of Bengalis. Conservapaedia isn't the only open source with a conservative bias, and what could be more conservative than discounting the numbers killed by conservative icon W. Churchill?Thorvelden (talk)

So, find a few good sources, and fix it there too - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fascist cretins

Wow, I was just looking around at my PunchingBag account, and noticed that you actually created a page fot this category! Fuckin' hilarious. Thanks! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IT ISS ALL ABOUT DER AUTOBAHNS! FAHR'N FAHR'N FAHR'N AUF DER AUTOBAHN! - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta!

Thanks for fixing my spelling :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's endless work on RW for those born with a red pencil in their hand - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No

You won't revert my edits. It was all Bob/Jack who begun to archive my edits from his talk page two seconds after I had written them, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do the same with his comments? Seriously. --Earthland (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Earthland is right. -- Nx / talk 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just something I need to say

At first I could have accused you of being a hypocrite. After all, nobody has ever sued Bob for immediately archiving my edits, even when I reverted his edits. (Similarly, many things become "truth" just as soon as someone else than me says it, until that point it is something "completely laughable" and even "couldn't be farther from the truth").

However, there wasn't anything hypocritical about bringing Bob's comments back from the archive after you had just deleted (not archived) my comment on your talk page. Like, nobody is that openly hypocritical. It was an obvious, but nevertheless blatant and childish attempt to make me angry. God, you must really hate me. After all, if I were just another clown/troll then you should simply ignore me. I honestly don't know how come that I am the target of such hate, since I don't even remember that I would've ever directly talked to you.

There is nothing left but to wonder how could people here seriously "accuse" poor little Tweety for being 12 years old. 12 is far more than RW's average.

--Earthland (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He's 17. He's only just heard that thinking exists, let alone joined-up thinking. He could do with a fun time on LessWrong, since we're too dumb for him - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"He's only just heard that thinking exists" your words speak of great maturity indeed. --Earthland (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're 17, you've only just heard that joined-up thinking exists - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't take you seriously because you're a single-issue troll. You have no interest in the site, you have no interest in its mission, you are a single-issue troll. You've reached the point where the difference between "troll" and "advocate" is meaningless. If you had any use here, you'd be contributing anywhere other than on your single droning monotone topic. You don't. Therefore you are a waste of bytes - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You should have made this comment on the Administrative Abuse page, my dear. Talking on one topic does not make me troll. However, if it does interest you, I have made other contributions as well, as it is mentioned on my user page. There once seemed to be quite a consensus that I am not a troll. I think you have difficulties with reading, and oh... wishes give you big eyes. --Earthland (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, you are not a member of the community and, notably, have no detectable interest in being one - only pursuing a single issue and attempting to exploit local rules to continue pursuing a single issue - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

New section

(Just thought that you'll notice)

Toast says it. --Earthland (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Death threat?

Did he just threaten to kill you? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I tangle with Scientology for fun - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if he's going to be making death threats, then we need to stop treating him like just another troublemaker. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Plausibly he's talking about site politics. i.e., I wouldn't personally consider this worth an ISP report - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think he wants to have sex with you. But it is a bit vague, as such innuendo often are. --Kels (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that my rhetoric gets the better of me sometimes. Sorry if thats how it appeared. 'Waiting in the long grass' is a commong UK/Irish political term... IE, Brown waiting in the long grass for Blair.

I will take this as a providential sign that I should take an RW break for a while. My trolling has been pretty hardcore recently.

Sorry! 86.40.207.73 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Plea

David, could you please edit by section on talk pages. Your edits on recent changes on e.g. SB & TWIGO are often hard to find, to the extent that I've stopped looking for them. 22:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to, then. But, uh, how does that affect diffs? - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just look at Recent Changes. Almost all the talk page entries have " → section name" which if clicked on takes you straight to the section instead of having to scroll down the whole page & hunt for the edit. Also, of course, section editing, rather than full page editing, reduces the risk of edit conflicts although I haven't noticed you getting many of them. Thanks. 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha. What I frequently do is just hit the "edit" link under the words "Current edit" if it's the current edit. This is all but reflexive now. Hit the diff and it will be obvious what I've just said. In further surprising news, wikis make terrible forums software - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh this conversation takes me back... Aceⁱ⁹ 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Say no more! That edit could have been a follow up to any of the three previous ones! 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not if you hit "cur" - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Think you'll find that most people hit " → ", I know I do. 23:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you start hitting "cur", you'll see precisely what I last did, every time - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitting CUR is so last year... Totnesmartin (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect

I respect you as a valuable contributor to this website. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that if a certain someone shows up on a user talkpage that isn't your own, you should let said user deal with it how they want. I won't stop you from doing what you are currently doing, it's just that some of us (myself for one) would rather toy with the trolls than revert them. Just sayin'. Peace. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree with the nine hour bans for MC, but the outcome of the LJ thing was that user talk pages are left to their owners unless the content is "obviously vile". i.e. something more offensive than some guy role playing as a Disneyfied Che Guevara. "Doing an Nx" is useful, since that's what brought us to the point of actually deciding how to deal with him, but right now we have a reasonable consensus we should try. --ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 14:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no worries :-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. If it was "RA you're a cunt and I'm going to track you down and kill you fucker" then I'd wholeheartedly support reverting someone else's page. But as it is, leave it to RA to see if he wants to keep it or burn it. ^gnostic 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whack a mole

Nice bit of whack a mole you're doing there. We really should implement some kind of award for keeping the place free of the irritant. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It amuses me and passes the time between writing substantive contribution. Others should feel free to join in. Note the increased infuriation value of not writing a snarky edit comment - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

True. I think we have a few people participating in this. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you block and bin him when he's not trolling? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 15:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a misunderstood on the word "trolling" - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw one saloon bar post that wasn't objectionable getting reverted, but nearly everything else was at least obnoxious. Looking at CP's definition of trolling has skewed my perspective so badly I just don't know what real trolling is anymore. Sorry about that. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I want not approve on it. I think polite post. SJ ^Debaser 17:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing MC posts here that is not for the purpose of trolling. That's how he got blocked in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he already explained his position pretty clearly, and the best approach seems to be to just keep reverting his stuff until he goes away or switches tactics. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask

"Letat mefenis hapedu owal be ro erare sapilal firopa, otapi rataroc loset lac esonucek reni! Ti delani nirar: Upu tusame cenikoc toter ranot esebehe tev hoyohe mitut si: Gidas retu resere pi reto sehi". What is that? Google says it's Latin but they can't translate it. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google on "gibberish generator" and something that made that came up. You had blocked someone for incomprehensibility ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha ok Senator Harrison (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your Welcome Comment

B-but, if this is as addicting as TVTropes, then won't it ruin my life?

...never mind. I'll take the life ruination. If TVTropes is awesome, then RW is.

Editing someone else's image upload copyright

Marking my photo "public domain" was a really bad move. What on earth was your rationale? ħuman 04:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you put, in the summary comment, that it was a public domain image? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 05:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah, apart from that. Back then we had no sophisticated copyright templates to choose from. Oh well. ħuman 06:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. My guess is that he was going through the unlicensed images category and saw you called it "public domain" and thought that that was the license on it. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, indeed. Like I said, back then we didn't have the concept of "self-RW only" copyrighting. ħuman 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, wut. If you didn't want it to be regarded as "public domain", why did you say in the text it was "public domain"? - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Per e-mail discussion, it was from back in the stone age of the Wiki when they didn't have cool templates that worded things like image copyrights the way you wanted them to be worded. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PRO TIP for Human: if you don't want to release things under a given licence, it's probably a good idea not to release them under the licence in question. See Creative Commons - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PRO TIP for David, how about asking the user in question, and having some historical knowledge? ħuman 09:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'd have done the same as David during one of my sweeps of the images. We've a lot of images without licences, and it only seems worth contacting the author if there's no comment at all. Historically there is some confusion, which is why I was asking a while back about how licencing worked back in the old days of RW. Still, it's in the power of teh wiki to fix these things, and it's difficult to see anything other than good faith and a completely understandable misunderstanding here. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And I did fix the copyleft on said image to what I "intended" years ago. I hope some of the above comments smooth out the tone of my first edit here. There's a lot of "old" material here, that needs to be upgraded, indeed. ħuman 09:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I live in constant fear of finding some of the stranger old material - such as a picture of Linus' nuts squashed up against a window. It's like the Ark of the Covenant but without the laser beams and stuff. Some of the old essays are quite interesting. Been working my way through them over the past week or so. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)The trouble is, a template is more "official" compared to a brief paragraph under it - but you can't retract PD or CC status after the fact. So you can get conflicting instructions and which one takes priority? Of course, this is all academic because the odds of this ever being tested in a legal sense lies somewhere between zero and none but it's still important that we try to minimise copyright conflicts. As for changing the status of other users work, or adding templates, there's one big issue in that the amount of sodding sockpuppetry on this site makes it impossible to conclusively determine who did what to who half the time. For instance, this edit CC'd PH's image, so I reverted it. But no, because Antony is PH but how was I supposed to know that and how do we actually know that? We have the advantage that PH is still around to sort out quibbles. We have a lot of images still unmarked that need sorted, and if we just relied solely on the original autho:::rs to do it, it'd take a very long time indeed. ^gnostic 09:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's clear now that Human is unclear on the concept - but in the general case, the expectation that no-one will fix a template problem is obviously unreasonable - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Human, did you add the "ZOMG NO TEMPLATE!" notice? No, a bot did. Did you flame the bot for saying in template form something you didn't say in text, or did you save that for someone saying what you did say in text?

I really do not see any problem with adding a {{PD}} when someone has said, unambiguously, that the work is PD. Are you claiming it isn't really PD? What on earth is the substantive problem here supposed to be, other than that you flamed here without thinking? - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

David, no. I typed "public domain, I guess". That is not unambiguous. This was back before we had easily-used copyright templates. You know, before you came here. You know, before your time. A simple note to me would have been nice ("Hey, do you really want this to be PD?"). It is clear to me that DG is unclear on the concept of a wiki evolving and growing, and perhaps, to some extent, 86.x.x.x is correct. ħuman 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"I did something without thinking, someone took me at my word therefore it can't possibly be my fault and the troll is correct." Your logic is unassailable - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A-nar-chy! A-nar-chy!

I take it you're not a big fan of all the nuances of anarchist theory? :) Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I used to do an indie rock fanzine. This sunk me deep into the alternative cultures of the late '80s and early '90s. I know far too much about this stuff. I also used to live next door to an anarchist bookstore. (Top people, lovely neighbours, an unfortunate number of attempted window smashings by neo-Nazis ...) - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indisposed

My laptop let out the magic smoke (really, delicate curling wisp of white smoke and the smell of burning plastic) when the power supply blew up and took my machine with it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa *sob* So I'll be sparse for a while - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Aw, sorry to hear. You were just about reaching Human levels of editing. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I just melted it with THE POWER OF RATIONALITY. - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just bought a replacement on eBay for £107 inc post. Yay! - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Marcus

I think you're being very unfair by just deleting MC's comments. Why not make them nice instead so he can get his point across without coming across as a cunt? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I can channel the deep yearnings in his soul, if I can be bothered - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you're new here, and you think you're a big swinging dick at WP, but knock it off. Read our community standards. Stop altering comments. Fuck off. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting angry about it Marcus Neveruse? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I thought community standards were there for a reason... I guess not when you're a cabalist. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The alternative is to remove them entirely. Surely that's terribly unfair to his important message - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's better to help him get his point across than to delete entirely. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

God, you guys are insufferable assholes. Changing and deleting comments is not cool. It's against the standards. It's irrational. It's authoritarian. You guys are douches. Let it go. You can do it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your bad faith is terribly disheartening - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And deleting Marcus' comments was expressly endorsed by the Lovely Jubblies in their recent decision, contrary to your assertions above. I suggest you spend a day or two in contemplation of the matter - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What was endorsed was allowing users to remove offensive posts from their own talk pages. ħuman 21:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Read our standards, asshole. You can't be doing this in good faith. Every change someone's comment at WP? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Marcus is a troll, and was made expressly unwelcome by being blocked. If he had anything whatsoever to say that was of any value here, he wouldn't be blocked. Equating Marcus with any other editor on RW whatsoever is fallacious. Earthland would wield the coathanger personally if the foetus was Marcus - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting a coprolalia article and using Marcus and his socks as an example. But I can't think of a goof RW angle. Any ideas?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Research psychologist

Looks like he just wasn't wacko enough for Metapedia. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We all laughed out loud - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As did I. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 21:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As did I! Gya ha ha! Research psychologist (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You realise, of course, that you are a failed Nazi - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, that was a funny conversation. Kind of like when Protestants describe Catholics as being deluded for praying to statues of Mary, while thinking nothing of the inherent strangeness in imploring the invisible alleged creator of all things to help them find their missing keys. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 11:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You fascist

File:Hitlercat.jpg

David's cat.

Why did you block that cunt, he was beginning to be fun? - π 10:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

MOAR HITLER - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I am so very, very sorry for all the trouble I have caused and will continue to cause RationalWiki. I like cats. PS: CUNT CUNT CUNT FUCK PISS SHIT - 86.40.195.261 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I not funny geek. no friends life. obese skull. PS: CUNT CUNT CUNT FUCK PISS SHIT 86.40.200.55 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing comments

We (apparently) have the permission of the Loose Jellybabies to remove his abusive comments. Editing them is needlessly provocative. I know I am being a hypocrite as I have edited his comments and I think I edited Jinx's comments once, but there is a reason you are his current target and that is he gets a rise out of you. Just remove them from your talkpage if they are upsetting you. - π 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As you do, I find him amusing in various small ways - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems somewhat asymmetric that you can both taunt him and block him. If you are going to play with him, let him have a fair chance to respond. - π 12:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

His responses are entirely contained in the history, in multiple redundant copies - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being a troll's advocate and committing the local equivalent of Godwin's Law, blocking a person and then either removing their comment or getting the final word in is an old tactic of Schlafly's and we have always strived to avoid such things. - π 12:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case I shall remove them and replace them with my own original parodies - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong about that at a technical level, but if he keeps trolling you I can give you a few hints why. - π 12:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a readout here for his blood pressure, which is rather higher than mine right now - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I smell of wee and am disgusting and vile. I am so sorry. 86.40.ei.π (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

David, please stop editing other's talk page comments. You want them gone? Delete them. What you are doing is forgery. ħuman 01:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I AM NOT A FORGERY I AM A NUMBER. I like you Human, you're not like the others. FUCK SHIT CUNT PISS - 86.40.ei.π (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it was me that started editing his comments, not Gerard. Gave me a laugh - far more than I would get from MC himself. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

FUCK SHIT CUNT PISS You are all beautiful and lovely people and I am deeply ANUS BISCUITS sorry for any inconvenience caused CLITORIS. Also, I don't really want sysop - 86.40.ei.π (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop being a dick. You are just unnecessarily antagonising him. You are not being funny and using your wiki powers to harass and bait him is assholish. - π 12:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Invective

Generally, I've no problems with shouting matches and hurling abuses - as long as there is still a subject which is discussed. But when a user just strings up invectives, I don't want such a behaviour to be encouraged. Therefore, I delete such entries as trolling - and I delete any troll-bating, too. I hope you find this acceptable. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 This sort of thing adds nothing to the wiki - 86.40.ei.π (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.

Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts.Blocking IPs only makes it worse just ignore the troll. You don't need to read his posts. P-Foster (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think P-Foster is trying to tell us something. What's that boy? Little Timmy fell down the well? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Woof. Quaru (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Gerard.

Are you really this thin-skinned? Suck it up, Princess. Grow a pair. P-Foster (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I like playing games too

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WOULD YOU LIKE A GAME OF CHESS? - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I am too idiotic for that. Sorry. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT A NICE GAME OF GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR POUNDING BAT SODOMY? - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Watt is that? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am popping in to say hello...

I don't think we've met before. Hello. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SCIENCE AND MATH! DEFEATED! - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how to respond to that comment.--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HA! HA! YOU PROBABLY TRIED TO USE SCIENCE TO RESPOND TO IT! - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God. EVIL STUPID DAVID GERARD BLOCK AND SUPRESS "SCIENTIFIC METHOD". YOU ARE EDUCATED EVIL AND MIGHT HAVE TO KILL EDUCATED "ONE" STUPID BUREAUCRATS. THEY ARE PAID TO ENFORCE EVIL STUPID COMMUNITY STANDARDS PROPAGANDA- NOT HARMONIUS 4-CUBE WISDOM!!!

Tremble, foolish mortal. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HA! HA! YOUR PITIFUL INDUCTIVE REASONING LEAVES YOU HELPLESS TO DEAL WITH MY POWERFUL CONSERVATIVE INSIGHTS! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

um you smell and yo moma dress you funny - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd score this one Emperor 7 David 2. ħuman 07:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi

Makes fun reading, don't it? 22:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What was that for?!

Can't users express their opinion any more? Can't users even nominate pages they consider stupid for deletion any more? Sounds like censorship! I didn't delete that page, I first made talk page edit, I followed the rules! --Idiot number 57 (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And your cat is ugly as well.

--Idiot number 57 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you vandal binning Idiot number 59?

That falls under the category of humorous vandalism, not a binnable offense. - π 11:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to unbin if you feel there's potential there to unleash - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't I am not a sysop, but if he is not damaging anything there is no need to bin him. Open editing for all. - π 11:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Justice will finally have to win. Your transparent attempts to clean RW of the intellectual ones have failed, David Gerard. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I like to understand the above if people make nice post? Tiatton of (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking MC for stuff he does on Crundy's talk page

Why? If you know that whatever a BON that starts with an 8 is writing on somebody else's page is gonna piss you off enough to deal out a block, why even read it? DFTT Gerard. DFTT. P-Foster (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your valiant defence of my Zenlike state of mind is deeply appreciated - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[trees and flowers] 86.40.204.94 (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Back off, David. No one asked you to unilaterally delete comments by/and block random things left by 86.n.n.n Please stop being a self-assigned dick wad. ħuman 09:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Crundy did expressly ask that MC comments be deleted. You are both way overreaching here. - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I see he did, kind of. Your link is not as clear as you might desire. Your desire to delete and block is unsavory. But we are not over reacting, we are concerned about RW's core principles. ħuman 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard "Being provably, factually wrong in the defence of liberty is no vice" as an RW principle before - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And, for the record, if MC leaves anything on my page, I'm cool with them being deleted on sight. And on site. I guess. I also refuse to further comment on anything he leaves. I learned my lesson. DFTFT... It's like trying to point out to a brick wall why they may need to be washed of graffiti... Except the brick wall in this case swears more. And tries to get in the way.. And accuses you of trying to repress his message of "killing all the darkies," as apparently it's the KKK who left the paint.. Oh well. Quaru (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Q, you need to say that at the top of your talk page. Not here, inviting a deletion/block hungry whore to take over your talk page. ħuman 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment appears to be saying "I was just proven factually wrong again so I'll spew some random abuse to try to cover for it." Is this another of those RW core principles? You should list them somewhere - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's it you have really done it now, he is going to revert your most recent edits for that. - π 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Human would never go off on a butthurt-motivated reversion expedition, that seems completely out of character - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In Gerard's defense, Crundy and I have expressed, in the past, what conduct we would like with regards to 86.#.#.# being on our talkpages. I'm sure that, if you asked Crundy himself, he'd say "revert," whereas, so far as I go, I usually prefer to handle it myself. I would, however, urge David Gerard to use extreme caution in dealing with 86####, though. As P-Foster said, be careful not to feed the troll. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 18:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I'm not going to give that little Irish twat the time of day. If someone else doesn't revert it from my talk page then either I'm going to do it next time I log on, or loads of other people are going to start having an argument with him about it on my talk page, thereby feeding the troll. So yes please, revert his 12 year old style rambling from my talk page (And thanks DG for dealing with that one). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I add my page to the National Do-Not-Troll List? --Kels (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Refs -> Footers

I thought there was a bot to do that. Prolly not or they'd all have been done. 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. Also, some articles have both - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you yourself could go in bot mode? Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just do a few more then get bored - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But yes, bot mode is a good idea for next time - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. I thought we did have a bot. Šţěŗĭļė chessboard 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial conversion we had a bot do, but it was a one time shot. tmtoulouse 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hostility

Clearly you haven't been here long enough to recognize that all of my fucking comments are indistinguishable from hostility, bitch. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Miss! Read a fucking book - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's read a fucking book Emperor, n00b. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FUCK A FUCKING FUCK, FUCK! Fuck - Fuck (fuck) 22:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to try harder than that to get my goat. Oh wait, you don't even know what a goat is...--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Zohilieo ur pol nizuwun

Ur bar ah mur bro brapisun

Hai miz bithutsoo

Uk zin patztuwoo

Hilmiz txa txodun gu kain tun - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BZZZZBZZZZZBZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You fucks know nothing of hostility. Ace^X-102 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

.-. ..- .-. .. .-. .- .. .--- --- .. -- . .-. - .-. .. ... ..- -... .- .-. ... -.- .- .-.. - . .-.. --- - - .. .- -. - --.. -.. .- ... .- .-. -.. .- .-. .--. .-. . --. .- --.. .-.. --- - --.. .- .-.. -.- --- -. . .-. -... .. ..- - .--- .- .. -. .... --- -. ..- -. .-. ..- -... .- .-. ... -.- .- .-.. .-.. .- -. --. .- ..- .-. -.- ..- .--. .- .-. - -.. .- ...- .. -.. --. . .-. .- .-. -.. (- .- .-.. -.-) 23:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an english speaking wiki, so speak english or gtfo back to cleaning my pool. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I DECONSTRUCT YOUR ANUS. IN FRENCH - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PUIS-JE LE DECONSTRUIRE? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your spelling is terrible. I think what you meant to say was "MY PENIS IS CROOKED AND COULD FIT INSIDE THE EAR OF A BABY ANT" Glad to help. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And they say, Theemperor, maybe one day you'll find true love. Ah, I say maybe - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)q

Alright listen here you mind-numbing fuckbags. Instead lazing around fingering your own stool samples while dribbling urine into a catheter bag why don't you seeping anus sores do something productive. Ace^X-102 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

STRIKE FOR MORE PAY! WE NEED PAID EDITING BY PEPSI - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bah! I've was a productive contributor on this wiki when you were still sucking you mothers' tits. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You've been here since yesterday morning? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SAY FRIEND. AN ARTICLE ON PEPSI'S FOOD FRONTIERS IS JUST WHAT THE RATIONALWIKI FOUNDATION WANTS TO SEE HERE - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hear that reputable foodologists are increasingly convinced that drinking fifteen bottles of Dr. Pepper a day drastically reduces your chances of dying from old age. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DID YOU KNOW THERE IS A HITLER TEMPLATE? I DIDN'T EITHER!!!!

--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is bloody class! Where do I sign-up for your newsletter? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the good old days. You lame fucks with no lives. MOAR HITLER! ħuman 02:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"You lame fucks with no lives. MOAR HITLER!" Careful there, Huw. Your acting like Hitler. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 02:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitler: My dog hass no nose!
Crowd: How ... does ... he ... schmell?
Hitler (clasping chest dramatically): Terrible!
--Jre (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesomely perfect!

I received the following comment minutes after making a minor tweak to our favorite string-theorist's page:

Jre, your posting is typical of anti-string crackpots with IQ below 100 who control academia. Crackpot Garrett Lisi does not understand the difference between fermions and bosons! Cranks with their 'theories of everything' who know less than 1% what I do and whose IQ is 45 below mine! Literally an inferior species! Standard Model has been proven to be a consequence of compactified heterotic string theory back in 1985! Lisi and Smith and Sheppeard and Hossenfelder will NEVER get onto hep-th on arXiv! 4 simultaneous 24 hour Days within only 1 rotation of 4 quadrant Earth! They are EDUCATED EVIL and STUPID! STUPID STUPID!

I can only bow in humble admiration to the author of the dada engine script that wrote this.
(The above was written before I figured out that I need to add a signature. --Jre (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

I wrote it all by hand based on Dr Motl's actual comments about Garrett Lisi's paper. Then Motl linked the Uncyclopedia article on his blog, so at least he has a sense of humour ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Userboxen

Finally got round to making it. So now people know you want them to go ahead and remove marcus comments from your talk page. Should avoid arguments.

This user likes a troll-free talk page. Revert away!

HTH. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "user talk pages are community property"? I dislike this ugly trend. ħuman 00:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You did, on the Loose Jellybabies and then above (where you considered being provably factually wrong and gratuitously abusive in the defence of ego liberty was no vice) - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed most of what is above. You have a lot of people complaining about the way you do this. ħuman 23:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Idiot number 57

Their post doesn't look much like trolling to me. Though I would like to know what they are talking about in it. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 19:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, David likes to delete anything he doesn't like from his user talk page. ħuman 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, "reasonable" is a little subjective, and we can only "discuss" it post hoc, otherwise there's no point. But a good enough rule of thumb is that if there is any of this post hoc controversy, the edit probably wasn't worth reverting. ^gnostic 11:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal binning IP proxies

Pointless if it's just going to switch to another proxy. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut it out. You're fuelling a situation that you won't be able to control, not to mention flooding recent changes with blocks and bin events that are going to do nothing precisely because all you are doing is blocking quickly and easily changeable proxies. ^gnostic 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You hate vandal binning, P-Foster hates blocking and wants vandal binning. As such, I offer both.

And it's not a proxy - it's a DHCP IP. That's why the three-minute pause while he reboots his modem - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but every time he restarts his modem, he's jacking off over the power trip. It's the disruption and the challenge of causing and most freaks crave. The more you make it difficult (and to be fair, you cannot make it difficult enough for them to stop bothering) the bigger the challenge, the bigger the attention, the bigger the thrill - thus extra motive for continuing. ^gnostic 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That is, of course, one theory. As far as I can tell, every time he restarts his modem he gets closer to blowing a gasket - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The blocking may be effective, but I agree that binning seems redundant. MC obviously has a lot of time on his hands, and even with binning he'll just reboot his modem and move to the next one. It may be time to revisit our approach to him. If reverting and blocking IPs for an hour, the only way to do it without letting him get his public jollies would presumably to shift to the bot group. Maybe we should just leave his stuff, and only remove it or block if he's actually damaging content? All just theories, since we can't really be sure which part of this little game really makes him happy. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MC doesn't have that much time on his hands - Sundays appear the only time he can reboot the family modem multiple times in an hour without pissing off the rest of the house - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He'll run out of addresses eventually. I noticed a few weeks ago that he was being forced to reuse IPs which had already been binned. EddyP (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)By playing the game at all, and the shitty thing is that this mini meta-conversation on the subject also counts, you're giving him the jollies. It's pretty textbook attention seeking behaviour. They want the controversy, they actively crave it and demand it to be on them all the time. It's the same motivation that gets right-wing talk radio hosts up in arms about the "liberal media" even when they're clearly the dominant force, they want hte persecution and extra attention that goes with it. The trick is maintaining control over the situation, which means actively denying them what they want, which is the attention. This means ignoring it, or acknowledging it in a very dry, quite calm manner, you know "that's nice, dear" and move on. This keeps the group at large in control because it's then forcing them to start pushing the buttons when they're not prepared for it; and as their outbursts get gradually more violent, in an effort for the attention, the responses get calmer and calmer. Of course, with nuances of voice this is much easier, you can quite happily go on and not need to control the specific language "you're a motherfucking facist cunts fucking fucker twat ballsack!!!!11" - "oh, that's nice, deary, thanks for reminding me that I haven't fucked my mother for a while" (you can see that this gets their goat in a calm, nonchalant voice, but the effect is lost in text, which does leave us at a disadvantage). At the moment, we're not the ones in control, and we never will be, because it's far too easy for one stupid nugget to give in and set the cycle up again. This is similar to parenting, the kid will play the parents off each other, crying to daddy if mummy says no and vice versa, and if there's not a united front presented, the cracks can be exploited. We're seeing the same pattern, can't get the attention they want from user A, user B will always be around to block and toy with. ^gnostic 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, though, if we stop responding to his 'you are all fascists' posts, he'll simply move into outright vandalism and force a response. EddyP (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it's escalation in order to get the attention back. The trick is for us to control the escalation. So you do respond, rather than revert or block, but respond in a neutral way. That starves off the "reward" and forces them to start upping their bait, which would include active vandalism of the mainspace, perhaps. Simultaneously, the care factor in the response goes down. That said, we're stuck in a pretty bad habit, everyone wants to have their little dig, their little say, do the ME ME ME I'M IMPORTANT stunt too, whereas in the care-factor-zero method, you'd have just one person respond, and no one else once one response has been given - and then anyone below just echoes the same thing down the chain. Starves off any sense of reward for trouble making far quicker than attention grabbing blocks, reverts and swearing. It's sad that we would have to resort to this sort of dog training idea on an actual human being, especially as I think they probably have very low social intelligence (although at least well-Googled enough to slot into RW's mindset, when it does want to be serious), and maybe a very serious abandonment/distance issue, leading them to seek a form of validation elsewhere through more destructive means. It's quite sad really, and I should put them down much more. ^gnostic 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicken poop

RationalWiki:Chicken coop#David Gerard -- Nx / talk 20:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you've changed your mind [1][2] about participating in the community when you have a concern. Welcome! - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not holing my breath RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive9#David Gerard -- Nx / talk 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done! You'll get to feel vindicated either way. It's obvious that the next thing you need to do is invoke to LJ to change process so that you get the result you damn well think you should get, instead of the response people actually give - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The response people actually give? People are getting annoyed by your power trips David. -- Nx / talk 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm getting annoyed by MC, but sure. EddyP (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You got to listen to other people too

David Gerard, David Gerard
the self-appointed guard
of trolls.

He wants to be in control
Being a dick is his only goal

He's just a conceited bully
a little immature baby
thin-skinned
and trying to fly upwind
against everyone

We know who you are
and believe us, you're not a tzar

Let us live
try to forgive
calm down
stop being a clown
cos noone's gonna crown
you
to be the king of Rationalwiki

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about my poetry writing skills? --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Idiot, Idiot, number 59
He thinks that he's so divine.
He writes a poem to David Gerard
But honestly, it's no better than lard.

He wants to see what David thinks of it,
So let me jump in! It reads like shit.
Find better things to do, I say!
For your poems bring to me dismay.

~SuperHamster Talk 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that was far worse than mine. You're just jealous because I didn't dedicate my poem to you. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would consider it a great privilege to not have a poem dedicated to me that comes from the hands of someone like you. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I quit this conversation. This is no battle of wits between you and me. I never pick on an unarmed man. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, because I was about to go all Assfly on you by blocking you, inserting that last word, and claiming my victory oh-so-proudly. The Schlafly Way is the Only Way.™ ~SuperHamster Talk 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I responded to your question on my talk page and now have come here to tell you about it. Why I didn't come here to respond first, who know. Icewedge (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

100 letters or less

I thought Twitter was 140 characters? Anyway, this is, with spaces, exactly 100.

"I will not apologise for being an atheist “activist” until the death penalty for apostasy is history"

But this is 127 characters.

"Until the death penalty for apostasy is consigned to the history books, I make no apologies for being an "activist" for atheism"

^gnostic 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/19857884983 - let's see if it goes viral - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it... ^gnostic 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My Facebook loved it ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering you are a Stalinist bastard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWiY1i4E21k&feature=related 86.40.205.7 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking too much

Hi David - thanks! I'll take that as a compliment. I don't have a mop in one hand, but do have a remote. Watching Family Guy right now (it is Sunday night). I discovered RationalWiki fairly recently. Lonius (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

PS - I couldn't have said it better -- quoting you, "I try to keep the arsehole side under control. Most of the time." It's a tough battle. Lonius (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some advice

I hope [this] will help you in your personal struggle to understand why you are an obese virgin who is universally despised. 86.40.204.123 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A thanks.

I think you do a damn fine job around here and make some valuable contributions. Never mind anyone else, RW is lucky to have you around. Ace^X-102 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with you on an administrative level, you do deserve a pat on the back as a contributor from the RationalWiki Pat-On-The-Back Society. So here you go: The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see how long my personal attention span lasts ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Best

Since you, obviously, seem to be knowledgeable about cryonics and (obviously) managed to attract Ben Best to roam about RationalWiki, I was just curious if you have seen any of his video on youtube? The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm knowledgeable about it because I researched it for Cryonics! Haven't seen any of his videos ... does he call his detractors Hitler much? - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Mostly, he just talks in a monotone about how much he can'[t wait to start reanimating life once science helps his pocketbook a little more. After that, it's usually too boring to continue to watch, but I can give you links if you want to try to watch them yourself. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"use your unblocked account"

David, please show me where in our rules that is says that a sysop has the right to tell any user what account he or she should use. I know you're relatively new, but socking up is actually something of a tradition here at RW. maybe you could review the relevant section in the sysop's guide and in the community standards before continuing your little feud with one user. Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What, how, unanswered question? Tiatton of (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Douchebag

God you are insufferable... I'm not MC. Please to unblock and fuck off. 193.200.150.125 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Please to unblock and fuck off" is definitely the most convincing request I've had this week. I'll just hop to it right away - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering one of the only things you've ever said to me was "fuck off, MC", how did you expect me to react? Are you going to undo your block or what? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will care to shortly, demonstrating your convincing case - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because your case is so convincing. MC has a habbit of hanging out at TWIGO:CP? What a prick...you're twice the TK Huw will ever be. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask nicely and someone might seriously consider it. ^gnostic 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do I have to be nice to this prick? He blocked me because of his suspicion of me being MC (which I'm not) since I got snarky with Susan (who hasn't done that?) on TWIGO:CP (a page MC never edits) as user Occasionaluse (references User:Neveruse. What the fuck happened to this place? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

http://193.200.150.82 is of course Anonymouse.org. Thanks and don't come back again! - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So fucking what if I was using Anonymouse? What I have done to get banned? Susan perceived I was being rude as opposed to snarky? Or maybe I'm being a dick? So ban me? Is that the way things work around here now? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

David, why are you treating a new user is such a prickish fashion? You blocked them for nine hours for engaging in a "fuck off" fest with another user who did not complain? I don't think you really get how this place works. ħuman 02:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New users must also love watching trolls abuse the shit out of people non-stop. Ace^X-102 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Losing bits of SVGs

I've noticed similar effects on SVGs, try ungrouping it all and reuploading. If that doesn't work try grouping it as one group. It's worked for nme before. 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Or I could just say "buggrit" and leave the PNG as the live version, as Armondikov is presently fiddling with ;-) The real answer is that RationalWiki is running a not so fresh version of rsvg, presumably the one that came with the Linux it's running on, and that a fresh enough one might require putting it in by hand. Bah. *waves* - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Counterexamples to you-know-what

I like the "dusting" that you did to that section of "conservapedian relativity". It looks more "professional" and, how to put it, "brusque" now. And just in time. We didn't know that uhhhh, company was coming. Well, I didn't; maybe you did. Gauss (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm appalled how crappy the featured articles have been allowed to become, and how hard and shrubbery-demand-filled trying to get clearly better articles into the pool appears to be - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We call them "cover stories" 'round these parts, in case you hadn't got up to speed with our lingo. ħuman 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that they've been allowed to degrade, although the Poe's Law one certainly did, it's that the standards have increased since then. A lot of the alt med ones that were up initially were because PalMD wrote good, concise entries and dropped enough papers on them to give them credibility. On the other hand, Homeopathy had been built up to be huge and very in depth and with serious supporting articles before it was covered a few months ago. ^gnostic 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Asshole

You have completely ruined this site with your egotistical ravings. When are you going to listen to all the people who chided you for deleting talk page comments, and pay attention to the rules about blocking? You're a complete fucking twat, and embarrassingly self-important and unfunny. Get a fucking clue. And get over yourself, meanwhile. 24.128.227.73 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Asshole

Heh. Ace^X-102 08:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you make my poem a sticky?

I worked so hard on it and it wasn't an insult or something, it was just a humble advice. I think it would be good for you to see it all the time. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin abuse

I will re-sysop you tomorrow. We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here. ħuman 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems unilateral to me, is there discussion that I missed where other were recommending rights removal? tmtoulouse 06:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that too - I have renewed his sysop status. Ace^X-102 06:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat, just for the record: "We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here". I don't know what DG does not understand about that, but he apparently doesn't. He seems to think it's ok if the person he blocks is someone less useful than himself (see the chicken coop/DG2 thing, which spun out of control because everyone turned it into being about MC, when it wasn't). Oh well. ħuman 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't understand it either because I'll block anyone who comes along simply to abuse and cause grief. Ace^X-102 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Toss me in with the reading-challenged. Personally, I think "is solely here to get in the way" is not the same as "saying stuff we don't like". --Kels (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not losing sleep over DG's choice of blocks. As I've said elsewhere, Trent isn't paying a metric fuck ton of money to host that sort of shit. ^gnostic 02:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it's time we rewrote the Community Standards (and sysop guide?), since they seem to have changed. Which is fine with me, as long as we all, or most of us, agree. Change the rules so he isn't breaking them. ħuman 02:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What rule has he actually broken? Ace^X-102 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ace, Mr. Gerard did this after this conversation between Occasionaluse and Susan. There, I did your due diligence for you. Lyra § talk 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

He blocked an editor for saying something he didn't like, an editor who could not unblock themself. As I said, if we want to change the "rules" (we don't really have any), let's just change them and be done with it. Maybe what worked for 3 years prior to DG being our most prolific editor doesn't work any more. So let's fix it. ħuman 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't understand why we allow nasty fuckers to progate this site with pointed abuse towards editors under the auspice of "we don't block people". Its fucking crazy. Ace^X-102 02:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Gerard accused the editor of being MarcusCicero, who is a troll, and used that as an excuse to block him. The user had actually made some positive contributions before using poorly chosen words to aggravate Susan (and subsequently Mr. Gerard). A warning would have sufficed, not a block. User:Occasionaluse is not a "nasty fucker," nor is he a troll. Lyra § talk 03:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lyra is correct. Ace, if we want to change the guidelines we can. But to change them, we must change them. As I read them right now, DG absolutely abused his sysop power and blocked a new editor who made a decent contribution, accusing them of being a known troll. He was wrong in several different ways, and is an unrepentant fuckwad at the date of this writing. However, he has the support, apparently, of many users in his abuse of the now-dead guidelines. So my request of you, and those who support DG's use of blocking to stifle dissent, is to bring up changes to the guidelines in a formal manner. User talk pages are not where we write policy. ħuman 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think that was a "decent contribution", you're outside the reasonable range of humanity and are actually incapable of such estimations. It was pointless abuse and worse than utterly useless. I did actually think it was MC, and the style of the unblock requests didn't convince me otherwise. By the time I realised it was Neveruse being stupid, someone else had finally unblocked Occasionaluse (after several others who had seen the exchange felt no inclination unblock either). I actually went to sysop Neveruse to quit his whining in future ... but, reading the log, saw that the consensus was strongly against doing so.

I do think I can say (based on discussion here, your talk page and the chicken coop) that the community is bloody sick of your continued defence of blatant griefers over anyone who isn't going out of their way to act like a fucking waste of space.

You, on the other hand, desysopped and decratted completely outside rules, consensus or pressing need. If you consider otherwise, do please provide a citation justifying your own action, since you've fallen back to bureaucracy as an excuse - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems the issue here was not space consumption, but an insult, in fact a reference to the more disgusting human anatomies, and worse still, the decomposing parts of the supposedly middle/elderly-aged; a below the belt shot aimed at something far more sacred and sensitive than imaginary testicles could ever be. Was it somewhat urtful? This should not be answered in the affirmative or the goat will be got. We must guess. If urtful, was it deserved/defensive? Oh the complexity of it all. It would be much easier just to categorically forbid insults that might be readily distinguished by the use of the dirty words. I think that is more fundamental to your claim that the community is turning against Human's protecting of the supposed transgressors of reason/goodness. You may become excited to know that I am working on a poll/proposal for dealing with such insults, to be posted over there in Community Standards (as well as policies for bureaucrats, etc). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that your attempts to work out human interaction from first principles with no comprehension are like watching a monkey try to fuck a football. I admire your perserverance but don't think you'll get very far with this approach. Have you considered http://www.lesswrong.com/ ? You would be on a level with many of their participants in social interaction skills - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We are straying from the topic of your alleged abuse, which is fine with me, but I have made a new section for it a few sections down. It is called "My conflict-resolution philosophies". ~ Lumenos 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally some drama!!! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic reaction to proposed policies

Your edit comment here reads, "It is a direct comment on your bilge, and you and Human are quite aware of this". Well, non-chronological archiving does detach it from the other sections and its meaning becomes even less clear. I "agree" there. It seemed to be a reaction, perhaps a parody, but I wasn't sure how much context would be required to make sense of it. Are you commenting only on my policy proposals or is this a larger issue?

My proposed policies seemed fairly simple. Do you have an objection you could express in a simple and straight-forward way? (The most appropriate place for these objections would seem to be the sections I created on the Community Standards talk page.) ~ Lumenos 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well? ħuman 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Human, if you suddenly think Lumenos has anything useful to say on the subject just because you've decided you're arguing with me ... By the way, you still haven't answered just which community standard you were invoking above - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

David, you haven't responded to Lumenos' concern that you consider his contributions "bilge". ħuman 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I do believe I have. Human, when did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Eir are strange, but eir cares. When did you start considering eir contributions "bilge"? ħuman 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When I realised that every contribution matched the pattern "concern troll", but without trolling intent. Sincerity does not imply non-bilge. When did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, you are now the ultimate arbiter on RW of who is and who isn't a troll. My apologies. NOW FUCK OFF. ^{— Unsigned, by: human / talk / contribs}

And, of course, I said he isn't trolling. I said he's a useless motherfucker. Well done on your superior reading ability - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are a mother I've fucked, I think you are unqualified to speak of my usefulness in that venue. ;-) You are obviously biased to claim all my ideas are as bad as any of them. This is where we see if atheists can be moral people; not the speculations of mainspace editors. I have my disagreements with you and Human, but I would never make such a generalization about my heathen brethren. ~ mothafuck'n lumenati beatch! 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

You have it at your gmail address. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered pointing out that Skype is proven to make people read the Bible more, which is why I only communicate via black holes. I do IRC by arrangement tho - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My conflict-resolution philosophies

"I would say that your attempts to work out human interaction from first principles with no comprehension are like watching a monkey try to fuck a football. I admire your perserverance but don't think you'll get very far with this approach. Have you considered http://www.lesswrong.com/ ? You would be on a level with many of their participants in social interaction skills - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)"

"First principles" would appear to refer to consequism. That is a much lower level than policy developement which I've been involved with at WikiIndex and now here. I don't know what you imagine I am trying to achive or what I haven't comprehended. I have basically expressed my perception. I know of no other way to see how it appears to others. When it is wrong or unclear, sometimes others help me to correct this.

On moral philosophy: I looked at the http://www.lesswrong.com/ wiki and blog. I don't like to discuss only abstractions. I would rather be involved in a conflict and use philosophy if it can be a part of the solution. If you have some better philosophy regarding first principles, I'd like to see it. I've never met anyone who seems to really comprehend my philosophy, so I doubt that you have either. ~ Lumenos 09:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never met anyone who seems to really comprehend my philosophy - I'd be surprised if you ever do. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't mean to imply this is somehow my fault, do you? I will gladly attempt to explain it, to anyone who wants to know. Here is a forum I have created, to explain my "moral" philosophy. ~ Lumenos 02:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your proposals of new rules is that basically all you seem (from your editing) to be interested in is how to hack rules. Bureaucracy is a useful skill applied in tiny doses, but that's all you're interested in. And you're not doing it to troll, you're doing it with complete sincerity, which is of course worse.

(When you've tried to participate in other ways, it's that monkey-football thing and I'm not sure that's better. Mostly it's stuff that would be ridiculously offensive if you weren't clearly devoid of any interaction skills.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I worse than a troll because you can't justify banning me based on the appearance of "malicious" (trolling) intent? Or maybe because I compel people to read instead of ignoring me? (There are also the unmentionable possibilities...)

At least in my case you are now generalizing about behaviours instead of labeling me.

I've said things that are "ridiculously offensive"? I did this while "trying to participate" so I guess this was something I posted in this wiki. Other than that I don't know what you speak of. You once interpreted Nx's behaviour as symptomatic of "butthurt". Are there some things to be legitimately offended over?

You seem to believe that you can infer from my behaviour (or the nature of humanity) my intentions and expectations. Like I was running for prom queen and I lost, so I should never want to try that again.

You write that I want to "hack" rules. This is a strange alternative to criticizing the proposals. But at least now you are generalizing over behaviour instead of labeling one "troll". We may be on the road to policy development. ~ Lumenos 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor, Dumas' restatement - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you might be up for attempting to criticize something you actually understand, here I attempt to explain a few things about my moral philosophy. ~ Lumenos 02:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Divabot

Nice name. Sounds sexy. Which diva is it we are talking about? LimpWrist (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I must point out, sir, that I only go out in a short skirt, stockings and high heels to pick up chicks - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, a cross dresser. Kewl! LimpWrist (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll be having none of this "cross-dresser" rubbish here, thank you. My skirt is a MANLY skirt, the heels are MANLY heels, the stay-up black stockings are MANLY stay-up black stocking and the frilly knickers are MANLY frilly knickers. And this does in fact get the chicks - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Who am I to judge? LimpWrist (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

AN OBJECTIVE INDIVIDUAL, THE ONLY TRULY SOVEREIGN ENTITY THAT CAN EXIST!!11!!! - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What does Divabot do? EddyP (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do a pile of lengthy and tedious categorising, then I remembered last botlike run I did making Nutty Roux whine that he couldn't follow it on his phone (no doubt an iPhone) and then I remembered I was gonna make a bot to do that stuff and then I created it and then I answered questions about it and it's bedtime now - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Divabot will remember to alphabetize the categories, right? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I trained it on this page - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

It's not you particularly that I'm pissed off at. It's just that you have, in the past, been a prick and been overzealous (to say the least) in using your authority. This wouldn't be much of an issue, except that all that has to be said is "MC" and this community goes "Oooh! They're right! MC is an asshole." The level of apathy regarding, for example, you being called out for abuses of power (whether you did or not is not the point) just because someone said MC is no excuse, in my opinion, for this website to abandon principles it has held high since before I even joined over 2 years ago. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 03:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Principles evolve with the community. It's disturbing but true. The community now is radically different than the community when we joined years ago (Has it really been that long? Wow.), but the principles have remained the same. As a result, the two are growing incompatible with one another, and strife is breaking out. I see only two solutions: change the community, or change the principles. Neither are easy and both are painful. Ah, well. I guess things will shape up the way that things will shape up. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to change my trousers. Ace^X-102 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a question: is it the community values changing or is it merely a scaling issue of community size? tmtoulouse 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say, probably, a little of column A and a little of column B. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 03:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Dunbar's number, isn't it? The community is now too large for everyone to know everyone else? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still possible to follow RC routinely. Any wiki you can do that on, lots of people are going to know everything. When quite a few people respond to "We don't block the trolls here" with "Actually, no, that's just obviously stupid", it means you've failed to explain it in any convincing way. "But CP do that!" is argumentum ad Hitler and obviously fallacious. You will need to convince people the thing that looks like a bad idea is actually a good idea, using ... reason. Or you could just try to drive away the people you're disagreeing with, of course - David Gerard (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When quite a few people respond to "We must block trolls here" with "Actually, no, that's just obviously stupid", it means you've failed to explain it in any convincing way...douche. 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the issues we are bumping up against is our previous approach of using "community standards" not "community rules." And taking a lassiez-faire approach to structuring them and enforcing them, allowing each individual editor to pursue their own personal interpretation of how this wiki should be run. Perhaps its time to really get some specific rules laid out about the things that are causing such conflicts.

A few key rules that are "non-negotiable" should help clarify when to block, and when not to block. Such things as "we don't block for content disputes" and "there must be a pattern (multiple incidents) of incivility in order to block." Blocking an IP for 2 hours is usually more than enough, stuff like that. tmtoulouse 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When the Loose Jellybabies says "obvious vileness, worthless" and then one of the LJ says "that wasn't vileness, that was a decent contribution!" then interpretation is more than just a little problematic - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I think we need to go back to embracing the concept of "mostly harmless" both in our proactive choices, and our reactions to the actions of others. When blocking someone for something, a small unit of time is usually more than sufficient to disrupt the activity (1-2 hours) and if someone blocks someone for a short unit of time and you think it was overly harsh, an hour block isn't the end of the wiki either. Subtlety, and above all else people need to remember that on a wiki almost any action done can be undone.

I also think we need to start really working towards discouraging incivility amongst our editors. I see a lot of insulting things getting thrown about that are really not justified in the least. Civility betwixt each other, subtlety in our approach to problematic users, and remembering that things can always be undone. Work towards these goals and I would think a lot of this social tension that has been permeating and seeping around lately could be aleviated. tmtoulouse 17:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, particularly since one of the things that can't be easily undone is losing good members of the community over petty disputes over things that are easily undone. I also think that at this point, we really need to start rethinking our sysopship policies; having 2 or 3 hundred sysops and 40 bureaucrats just means that there are effectively no administrative decisions that won't be contested by someone. Cubic stupid Phantom Hoover! 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The social rules are "CP did this bad thing so we'll go 110% the other way!" This isn't necessarily a good idea. It depends if you want a social space that is only for CP veterans, because others don't put up with it. In which case a Foundation, plans for expansion etc are pretty pointless. A list of rules that wouldn't look obviously insane enumerated under the mission statement? - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude just doesn't get it... Censorship = bad. Bullying = bad. Persecution = troll food. God, I wish you would just stay at WP... Occasionaluse (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying "persecution is troll food" misses the point. We don't block MC to annoy him or frustrate him, or at least I like to think we're better than that. We block him because that stops him from poisoning community interactions and making everyone angry at one another. Cubic stupid Phantom Hoover! 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's at all true, I'd say it's more of a paradox and that both are true. IMHO, as someone who a lot of people think is a troll, the worst thing in the world would be to be ignored. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That is completely true, but unfortunately we have tried and failed to get people to ignore him. As such, we need to fall back on the next best thing: blocking him and removing or hiding his comments, to prevent people from responding and giving him grade-A troll food. It's not as nice as the first solution, but it works. Cubic stupid Phantom Hoover! 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But it is equally bad to allow a caustic and poisonous element in the social interactions of the wiki to do whatever it wants. Censorship, bullying and persecution when dealing with content disputes are bad things, but the community has a right to remove individuals that are doing nothing but harming it.

I still think more than any of these issues our single biggest problem is that we are tolerating open hostility at well meaning editors way too much. Comments like "God, I wish you would just stay at WP" do nothing but propagate problems. tmtoulouse 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trent, and regret my part in making things worse. (By the way, the current hostile atmosphere makes the fights between Human and me look tame by comparison. I'm getting all nostalgic for when even the worst arguments could still produce worthwhile site policies.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you make hostilities a problem, then yes, hostilities will propagate that problem. If you don't...it won't. It seems like we got along just fine before we were forced to be civil. Or we just have to frame it in rhetoric to appease? If I believe David Gerard is a fucking cunt who does more harm than good, why can't I say that? Because you think that does more harm than good? Alanis Morissette would call that ironic. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

^^^^And that comment, above all else, demonstrates that Occasionaluse is MC. Only MC would pull the "We should be able to call each other cunts without impunity, just like we always have" argument. Which is rather disingenuous, because before MC came along, we didn't call each other cunts. Remember the HUGE fallout when MC said "fuck you, SusanG" in the Epic debate? That was a big deal. It's still a big deal—just because MC and David Gerard hemorrhage insults all over the place doesn't change that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right, because MC is the only one who uses personal attacks... 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite thing about you is the ability to differentiate between me and MC (even though it's not that hard). Occasionaluse (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time holding anyone in respect that has to result to aggressive name calling and I think that applies to many people. Which is why I learn very quickly who to bother to read and who not to read. I long ago learned to ignore anything written by your "neveruse" persona and am likely to do the same for this current persona. Encouraging a bit of civility will go a long way on this wiki. Perhaps those of us that just ignore it should instead speak up and let people know that acting in such a manner makes sure that we don't care about anything they say. tmtoulouse 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Express your opinion unless someone else might find it offensive. Great job, guys. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about how you chose to share your opinion about editors. That is all. I am merely telling you that I find it childish, and it demeans you in my eyes, and it makes your opinion amount to nothing to me. If you didn't result to incivility I might actually care about what you say. tmtoulouse 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And how is that a problem for either one of us, Trent? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just thinking through various way of dealing with the rampant name calling and incivility which is getting out of control. As I said, part of the problem is most of us just learn to ignore people like that. I think it might be better to occasionally step in and say something, to make sure the person your insulting knows that others don't feel the same way, and maybe if enough people do it, those who want to be positive members of the community will stop doing it, and those who don't will be obviously labeled as the out casts. tmtoulouse 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But you've already figured out how to deal with the rampant name calling and incivility, so I don't know why you're "thinking through various way of dealing with the rampant name calling and incivility". "I long ago learned to ignore anything written by [you]...your opinion amount[s] to nothing to me." You don't think it's a problem until you decide to make it one, which is too bad, because you were doing fine. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That would make a nice change - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this MC stuff fascinating. Its clear and obvious that the troll benefits from interaction and notoriety, yet at every stage you all interact with him and simultaneously manufacture notoriety. Developing new ultra hardline regulations are part and parcel of this initial failure, which in effect only strengthen the hand of the troll. I've said it before; repression only works if you follow it to its maximum. Bureaucratic half measures will not work on a site such as this as a large portion will rightly hold such innovations in disregard.

I should also add that I dislike David Gerard. I've had run ins with his type on wikipedia before - they know how to play the rules inside out and will manipulate people for their own pleasure. Also, it is interesting to see MCs suspected socks (Neveruse and Theemperor, according to RWW) keeping this controversy alive. Neveruse by highlighting MC at every turn and Theemperor by essentially arguing in favour of abandoning the RW model of community governance - ie, meta trolling. Libertarian1 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Very insightful. I wouldn't say I highlight him, only the injustices lodged against him. (For instance, if MC did something, but DG somehow, some way managed to ignore it without reverting/banning, there'd be nothing for me to take issue with). But I see can how people perceive it that way. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've picked up a few things from my stalking of this site. I'm glad you value my insights, Marcus. :) Libertarian1 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a real chance for peace in our time. Ace^X-102 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh Oh! Irony alert! Libertarian1 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have the answer

How about we don't block the trolls, but we do block (for an hour or so) people who don't ignore the trolls? Has that been suggested?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the blatant griefers while simultaneously punishing the good faith editors appears to be favoured by some. I suggest it is unlikely to make a workable social environment, would cement RW's eventual fate as being no more than "rest home for CP burnouts, everyone else go away" and would be in the class of social rules too insane to publicly list - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An hour's block isn't much of a punishment. Denying a troll the very thing that it wants (a reaction) is hardly protection either. Don't Feed The Trolls is a common-sense rule, but it is sometimes hard to stick to it. If people fail to stick to it, why not give them a nudge, by way of a little block, to remind them?--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Because, like yourself, all "good faith editors" simply cannot help themselves from feeding trolls. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how cleaning up the troll turds is "feeding the troll." Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to explain, or do you want to go on believing that? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a wiki. To provoke a reaction, trolls only need to start messing up mainspace articles. Good luck not feeding them then.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If by "messing up mainspace articles" you mean vandalism, then we're on another subject. If not, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please elaborate. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Attacking mainspace pages is annoying, but at least it's obvious who's in the wrong when it happens. On this site, the trolls get a lot of mileage out of playing the victim and exploiting grey areas in the community standards. A mainspace vandal can't do that.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean outright vandalism, but things like starting lame content disputes and general chain-yanking.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a gray area. Lame content disputes are part and parcel of wiki'ing. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove the scales from my eyes, O master. How does removing trolling = encouraging trolling? Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Right-O grasshopper, take a seat... Would you concede trolling is centered around the attention the troll receives? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am enlightened! You posting like you do is everyone else's fault and none of yours! - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear here; I am not interacting with Gerard any longer as it is obvious that my participation is leading this community to overlook blatant abuses. Hence the logical thing to do would be to ignore him. I was aware from the beginning that my dealings with him would only strengthen his hand, but it was my plan all along to drag out his true nature until Rationalwikians grew alienated by his horrible presence. 86.40.201.187 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Excommunicators unite!

The proposal: All editors who do solemnly vow to excommunicate a particular "troll" shall put their name on a list saying that we may block them for the amount of time they specify, if they reply to said troll, without taking their name off the list. They should indicate also if they wish to be blocked for speaking to a BON who uses the same Internet access provider as a troll (and says something trollish) or if they wish to be blocked for replying to any anon proxy edit which may appear trollish.

Got a troll you want to start with KAA? ~ Lumenos 09:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself

Don't you even look at the other edits when you post a WIGO? You perpetrated three bad numbering errors. May the goat have mercy on your asshole. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I always use a nextpoll clicky. Safe WIGOing! - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed a bit blunt. Using the auto number means that if the dolt before you cocked up then you just propagate the error. So it's good practice to check the numbering anyway. Love & kisses. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this system is more trouble than necessary? Why can't we automate the numbering fully? Cubic stupid Phantom Hoover! 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I forget what Nx said. Either it's simple enough as-is or there was some legitimate problem in generating the next id in the sequence. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn it!

You fucking bumbag! I had just finished reading this article and was about to place it on WIGO World. Damn it! Now you'll take all my fucking glory and hot sexy science chicks. Ace^X-102 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fucking Flaccid got it into Baraminology five days ago. We both suck - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn it! Worthless scumbag! Ace^X-102 21:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Blocks

Is there really a point to blocking those IP's when their puppetmaster uses proxys anyway?--Centimeter_INCHES 18:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As per past discussions (see archive), he isn't. He's having to go and reboot the modem, wait a few minutes, and try again. 86.40.* is a DHCP range, not a proxy range - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why not do a 9-hour rangeblock every Sunday when the troll (MC, right?) usually comes and just get it over with?--Centimeter_INCHES 20:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Because range blocks aren't possible on RW, per previous strident arguments - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but you dream of the day when you can, don't you? Tiatton of (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's for the best. Since we can't do that, why not just unblock him and revert and block as if he were any other random troll. He probably loves the special attention we give him.--Centimeter_INCHES 23:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This comes up so much I posted questions at RationalWiki_talk:Blocking_policy#Examples_of_rangeblocks. ~ Lumenos 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat on the back

Job well done on the New Age template. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 01:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While we are on the subject...Thanks for Phil Gramm picture, it brings out the weasel in him. (Hope I didn't step on any toes in editing the article.) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED BY AWESOMEXCORE VANDAL

PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND PWND

That is so 2004. ^gnostic 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

why

Why would you want to keep a mistaken WIGO up? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So it can be voted down? ħuman 20:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect WIGOs to be factual. From the looks of the voting, so do most other people because it was mostly positive. If you really want to gauge how stupid RWers are, keep it up. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My latest pottery

Things are going down
Cos you're just a clown
And everyone around
Are a bit run-down

Why can't you fuck off?
We already scoff
at you

Have you been any use at all?
I hit my head against the wall
But nothing comes to my mind
Oh please, will you resign?

You label everyone as trolls
Better go to live on North Pole

--Idiot number 57 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it

More on Kurzweil. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added it as a reference link to Ray Kurzweil. This makes me wonder at the contortions LessWrong would go through if asked to justify Kurzweil's nutritional woo and the rationality of alkaline water machines - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...that's a good question. I'll ask. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

'Tis done. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, blank denial's easy. I predict that'll be the entire reaction barring a bludgeoning of Kurzweil's blatant woo-mongering. I'd be most pleased to be shown wrong - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It might also just be ignored or not read at all - comments on the open thread don't usually attract much attention unless a notable poster put them there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Now it's getting exciting. I honestly cannot believe I was upvoted for posting that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What excitement? It's at 0 ... or is there more elsewhere? Update: Ah, it was cached. I see it's gotten points. And is first in the thread. Muwahaha - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For your perusal

Apparently Ben Best of the Cryonics Institute is also selling supplements...interesting. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh man. His justification is straight pseudoscience too. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!! You wanna add it to Ben Best? - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see where he's actually selling them, rather than merely advocating them - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Baraminology kerfuffle

You may be interested in the Todd C. Wood baraminology kerfuffle, looking here and here especially. OMG he's saying apes are humans! sterile chessboard 00:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder when Wood will finally admit to himself that he's proven evolution - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: our favorite website

Have you seen this? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

fuck

InstantCommons just broke. It's working on RationalBeta, so I doubt it's going to magically fix itself. It's past 1 AM. -- Nx / talk 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You should probably tell the Saloon Bar, not just me ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the Wikimedia guy, go ask Jimbo why he broke Human's wiki. -- Nx / talk 23:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably to sell it to Wikia. I'm getting a few Commons images, presumably in cache. I'm presuming the API is hiccupping or down or something stupid. I have little to no idea how InstantCommons actually works ... presumably via API. I can get http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php though I haven't tried fetching things through it. Understanding it would require grovelling through the PHP files on rationalwiki.org, or downloading the 1.14.1 tarball at least. It's 12:15am here, so it can definitely wait for me to think about it in the morning - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it uses the api, I took a cursory look at the wmf branch in svn, and the last change to the api was 2 weeks ago, so unless it took this long to deploy, it can't be that. Bah, this is why depending on external websites sucks. -- Nx / talk 23:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

True. Perhaps a faff-free importing extension is needed. A simple matter of programming! I'll start right away. *zzzzzzzzzzzzz* - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:LessWrong's "topic that shall not be mentioned"

I vaguely remembered hearing about it (I assume this is the discussion about why it was deleted) but I can't figure out what it is. Do you know? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but I can't be bothered looking. I would be amazed if there weren't already several works of trashy sci-fi containing it - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, now my OCD has kicked in so I'm going through some old LW threads to try and figure it out. Seems like it has something to do with Friendly AI and "torture scenarios." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be it. (Not sure because I haven't read it all yet) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the possibility of somehow punishing people who don't donate to the Singularity has been discussed in LW comments at length and the only new bit is having an insufficiently unfriendly AI implement it ... that would be just stupid - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I was right - this was it. Read the post and the first comment, which is by EY. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What superintelligent AI isn't going to immediately read every work of cheesy sci-fi about superintelligent AIs? Obviously I don't understand superintelligent AIs sufficiently. That idea is too stupid even for sci-fi, though saying that I'm tempted to try - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see EY's comment, though? It sounds like he nearly had a heart attack there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering FAI is about building a friendly God ... yeah, the sci-fi version is obvious. The Last Question inverted - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the parallel between the short story and Roko's point now. It took me a minute to get it. But I am amazed that they would rather censor the problem than solve it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they're working on it. Let's hope no-one comes up with an insufficiently friendly AI shortly - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of them (especially EY himself) think that we'll have a fully functional self-modifying AI any day now. I recall that somewhere he implied that he may be one of the most pivotal people in history because of this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He was asked to deny that he was and didn't, I think. Some of the stuff on LW is quite... disturbing. Broccoli (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was something like that. I hate to agree with Jaron Lanier, but as he once said, planning for a Singularity in the near future can make you into a kook (one of the few sensible things he has ever said). I get a bit perturbed from time to time as well. This is perhaps the most disturbing thing I've seen so far, both Roko's idea and the response. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see why accidentally creating Yahweh might be considered not such a good outcome - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, naturally. That's what's so screwed up about the idea of the CEV anyway. It goes beyond that, though, at least for the hardcore AI theorists like EY. We're not even allowed to think about AI or the CEV, for the reason Roko explains. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Decompartmentalisation is an important thinking technique. It leads to powerful results, some positive and some negative - David Gerard (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for bringing on board two of the more interesting topics I have had to study into here lately, cryonics and this weird LW/AI thing. Interesting topics dominated by strange, but smart and well-meaning, people. ħuman 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consciously seeking people smarter than me seems to have been a productive idea. I was lured to both notions by User:Ciphergoth. Also, I seem to impress way too many of them with my dazzling social skills, which amazes me given my frequent bursts of obtuse arseholedom - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

LW

I notice you're quite friendly with the LW crowd these days. As you've undoubtedly discovered the only way to communicate over there is to use their own aggravating jargon. Overall, they seem to be taking your criticisms pretty well. Although I suspect you are holding back :) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they're managing quite so well. I have one I'm saving for the Open Thread which is the comparison of "guaranteed friendly AI" and DRM, in terms of the threat model: in either case, one breach and you're fucked - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

EY realizes this, hence this document. He apparently wants something "provably Friendly," although it isn't very clear what that means. LW is aware of this and (if I recall correctly) various people have written about it. But don't let that stop you, I definitely want to hear their reply. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I notice you've mentioned RW at least once - I am waiting with bated breath for them to come over here, see our article on them, and throw a fit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

They're well aware of it and I see it quoted from time to time.

What happens if the AI makes other AIs? Will they all contain a friendliness guarantee? What if it makes a mistake? Will it be restricted to making only perfect copies of itself? Will it never, ever make a mistake, e.g. like all those AI researchers who don't agree with EY on friendliness? If the copies can be imperfect, what is the evolutionary selection pressure toward friendliness? Etc., etc. Given Michael Anissimov thinks DRM can work, I question that anyone there is thinking like a security researcher - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

EY et al. would reply that an FAI would only make other AIs if it was sure that they would be Friendly, too. I would agree only on the condition that this first AI is really as smart as EY claims, which is doubtful. EY isn't at all fond of evolution in terms of creating AIs, for the very reason you just mentioned.

I haven't read much Anissimov, but if he thinks that DRM works then he is laboring under some serious delusions. On the whole they aren't too focused on security, except perhaps in some, ah, unusual ways. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume DRM = digital rights management? ħuman 01:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And at Tet, I can't even read into the first comment. Those people are insane. Well, mad. OK, deluded, in that they think what they are discussing is of any use to anyone ever in the real world. ħuman 01:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Human, which first comment? Mine about AIs creating more AIs? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant the first comment after the post you linked to at LW - my eyes glazed over and my anus threatened to take over my higher functions. Sorry that was so unclear. ħuman 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm bored so I will try to explain it (or at least give a very rough approximation - I have no desire to get into a discussion about the finer points of the ludicrous idea of CEV). Here it is, PJR style:

The point about demarcating individuals is important for ethical theories generally (and decision theories that make use of spooky 'reference classes'). Bostrom's Duplication of experience paper illustrates the problem further. How you define an "individual" matters when dealing with AIs that determine what is "good" for people by looking at what the majority of minds think is good. The paper linked to explains how different minds generate difference conscious experiences, so the AI might be inclined to treat identical minds as different people. This would be bad, since you could then influence the mind-reading AI by making copies of yourself.

Also, insofar as CEV is just a sort of idealized deliberative democracy, this points to the problem of emulations with systematically unrepresentative values rapidly becoming the majority when emulation hardware is cheap. This is basically a restatement - if the CEV (a kind of AI design that looks at what human minds, collectively, would want to do) gives separate minds two votes instead of one AND the ability to make copies of one's mind is easy, then the CEV is fucked.

Any better? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, but thanks for trying. Why do they think they know what AI will be like, and why do they leap to it being all-powerful...? So many questions, such silly answers. Sorry for mucking up your orange box page, Dave! ħuman 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. I tried. In as few words as possible: they think AIs will be this because they trust EY and SIAI's judgment on the subject; they especially buy into the idea of FOOM, which other AI researchers don't.

And yeah, sorry about the walls of text, David. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

*smirk*

Now you're talking like a LessWrongian. (Four LW/OB links in one comment! Impressive.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not allowed to call fuckwittery "fuckwittery" without linking to EY's essay defining the quantum theoretical background of fuckwittery - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just curious.....

Since you were partially to mostly responsible for making our Citizendium article what it currently is, what your thoughts on all the Citizendium user drama over at talk:Citizendium are. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 23:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly that no rules can cure human stupidity.

I'm really waiting for the current team to start posting to blog.citizendium.org - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, can't argue with you there. As I think I posted somewhere on that talkpage, if this is how so-called "professionals" are off-Wiki, I'd hate to see them on-Wiki. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 00:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that I do mean general human stupidity, not specific individual stupidity - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Get in here!

Your input would be more than welcome. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm currently answering Luke. The only tricky part is putting enough LW links in my answer, 'cos you win upvotes by referencing scripture :-D - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First attempt. Others are most welcomed to do better - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So far I only have only link, but it got 8 upvotes. I think the key is to link to the Sequences, not just any old LW post. But I will try to do better. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It does help that Luke is incredibly irrational. He believes in cryonics and only ever uses arguments as soldiers; you nailed him straight out of the LessWrong scriptures, so you go up and he goes down. Though I do think it's a misfeature that if his post goes -1, our +10 posts will be hidden - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's by design, since they want trolls to quietly disappear. But I think it has to be -2 or worse, though I'm not sure. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Related

Brilliant. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

7 points at this writing. I do like the LW moderation system a lot, as you can in fact call fuckwittery fuckwittery if you give your references. The quality of the comments is for me even more addictive than the tab-explodiness of the site - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the karma system is very effective. And there are enough LWians who don't belong to the transhumanism/cryonics/AI belief cluster, so if you say "cryonics is bad" (with something to back it up), you won't get downvoted. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"...Your commute, your job, your wife, your children, and your body..." at this point I am not impressed with Louie's grasp of good writing, let alone analysis. Cripes, at least ladyfolks of several different denominations run RW. Places like LW and CZ remind me of Victorian gentlemen's clubs. ħuman 04:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RWW

Was that you? Do you really want me to "improve" your article? ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 01:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I actually care. Do you have any plans to update MediaWiki, by the way? - David Gerard (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean do I right? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Trent has the server. I just write articles. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 02:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be much more artistically appropriate to just leave it where it is, a forlorn request - David Gerard (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, should have said that earlier. Well, I didn't add much except Cz and your like of martinis, so meh. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you. The martini is very important - David Gerard (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing in vogue here among those that drink martinis is adding pomegranate juice. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

heyyyy.... its me your friend.....

)

)

Disambiguations

It is template:fork. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A very Important Email.

I have sent a very important email with an attachment to your Gmail account.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It was inevitable

Congrats for getting RW mentioned. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, I know JoshuaZ from Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

what is the inferential distance from here to Lesswrong? Pointed moment (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting smaller as I make Bayes jokes in the saloon bar - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll start worrying when you sign your credit card details over to ALCOR. ^gnostic 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Now look what you've done...

A cryonics organization is after your scalp. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait, you've seen it already. Nevermind. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I spend more time there than here. Current quest: getting Vladimir Nesov to actually admit that having a Forbidden Thread may possibly have been counterproductive - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what good it'll do to revive that discussion unless EY is involved. A lot of LWers still don't think it should have been deleted, they're just tired of talking about it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. As I've always said "if you're pissing someone off, you have to be doing something right". How is LW? Since you're being involved I've become curious. I've pondered trying to join and discuss but have always been put off by a combination of the attitude and the fear I "don't know enough" (that said, I also had the same idea about RW two years ago...). ^gnostic 21:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I originally thought too, but I ended up spending most of my internet time over there. Might as well give it a whirl. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're polite, use local jargon and learn to respond in clear thinking to stupidity rather than exploding, it's shockingly easy to get into - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: I am shocked by how much they're letting you hit them over the head with the "disturbing idea." Some of those threads got really heated but they got upvoted anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The closest I have got to stating it is mentioning "Old Testament" and "Harlan Ellison". When trying to tell someone how stupid they're being, one must bend over backwards to at least get upvotes. It is possible that I am wrong, we are wrong and this idea is actually dangerous; so I'm mostly confining myself to the problems that throwing LessWrong's intellectual integrity under a bus by vanishing posts causes to LW and SIAI's perceived integrity, with the implicit message that it'd really help if they said something. I don't actually expect them to, sadly. But others have chimed in with useful comments on how one deals with dangerous information in general - a good example is Kaminsky's 2008 DNS flaw and how he tried to solve that with a small private group before the details inevitably leaked out - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point it looks like the discussion has broadened to be about how much we should trust people from SIAI given that they are, after all, salespeople. (See also: the link I just posted on the LW talk page.) I think that's definitely a good thing, but I doubt that that discussion is actually going to get anywhere. What I'd ideally like to see is a discussion of the idea itself, not the context/reasons for banning/etc., but that's probably not going to happen either. I agree that it is possible that we are wrong about the idea, but seeing as it is based on the extremely questionable idea of acausal trade, I can't help but conclude that it can't be completely correct. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. (cough) I am hoping Anna Salomon will take in my experience on the matter, WMF deals with barrages of stupidity from blithering idiots all the time and I'm one of the people who crafts weapons (soundbites) to head them off - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just realized that the archive of Roko's post was created by someone named "wfg". Probably not a coincidence, I think. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

EY says that Roko was wrong. In case you didn't see it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, what an HCM - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, it's pretty amazing. It was definitely interesting to be a part of - unlike RW HCMs, intellectual discussion somehow continues to go on. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

You have been nominated for the board of the RWF. Please go here to accept or not!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAA YOU BAAAAASTAAAAAAAAAARDSSSSSSS - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Been a while since I chatted with you

How are things going? Are you dead? Still living? Still sailing the seas of windbaggery over at LessWrong? I'm afraid I've fallen behind on Twitter -- are you still active there? Still posting long-ass ramblings about dense technical matters on your LiveJournal thingie? (Whenever I read it, by the way, I always get confused by your hot-lady avatar, and think the posts are actually written by your wife.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not in fact married to Elle Macpherson, and if I were I certainly wouldn't be letting her read newspapers upside-down. My girlfriend is much more like the boxing girl icon, certainly in attitude - David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Swans

Swans! Mei III (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Swans! - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Swans! Mei III (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your one is actually very danceable, whereas mine is mainly for breaking speakers and making people nearby yell at me. Mei III (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you around?

I want to work on A comparative guide to science denial, but mostly I need some help looking for quotes or examples. I'd like to get it in line with the methods in the denialism article. sterile^talk 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

hmm, nice idea - David Gerard (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Still here?

Hm, I have to do something about it. We'll see, we'll see.... hehehehe --Idiot number 57 (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

New ARJ aticle

There's a new Answers Research Journal article on kinds here. I will say it's a bunch of jibberish. sterile^talk 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren Clogo

But don't you understand that it's not just taxes that are rape, but democracy itself is gang rape! Statist liberty-hater! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Postmodernism

You have been summoned Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What fun! - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the words of welcome :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

You did lots of the work on Evidence (as well as many/most of the xian/bible stuff). Would you add some comments of what things that article needs to "go gold". I'd love to have a punch list (as it were) of things we need to focus on improving, and your voices is a good start. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 19:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"new testament evidence is so bad" line is flatly wrong. Archeology has shown almost every city, save Nazareth. Found references to most of the players outside of the jesus story itself... You can't just say "it's so bad" when it's realy not...--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS, if you find citations for anything on that page, just put them in, and we can clean it up at the end

I noticed there were quite a few duplicate citations which we can clean up later, using ref name =. But I figured right now, I'd just stick every citation I have, and worry about making those look good later? if that's ok?--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Jewish Prophets

When I was reading around, trying to find the name of one of the Maccabee brothers, I stumbled on a list of all the (known, i suppose - there probably were many more) prophets that claimed to be the messiah. Do you think such a list would have any value on RW? --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course! There's a Wikipedia article on the topic which may or may not be useful - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew there were a lot. I just didn't realize exactly HOW MANY. I'd be curious what was going on socially and politically that caused such a push. I guess the romans starting to pick off everyone from your religion might be a good reason to have prophets/messiahs sprout up like weeds.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Torsion fields

While you are on a roll with scalar waves, you can look into "torsion fields". The red link has been staying in RW:TODO for quite some time. If you need a starting point, Richard Hoagland is a fan.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I just prodded the loved one, pointed at your message and said "My fellow editors hate you" - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now unless I start frothing - looking at wikipedia:Torsion field (pseudoscience) I think I'd need to know what I was talking about, and my Ph.D physicist coworker already upbraided me for inexactness in the scalar wave article - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New Answers Research Journal article on baraminology

Enjoy the show! sterile^talk 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAA (sporks out eyes) - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You're working hard!

excellent work (as always).--GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just realized

that you have an ED article about yourself. I imagine you knew that. Well, if it's to be believed, congrats on living a full life--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd, as the kids say these days

This is one of my favorite links on the site. Although pop evo psych also resembles this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:-D - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

LessWrong

Noticed some of your posts on LW when I was looking through the discussions. Good stuff! You seem omnipresent on the net.--^talk 11:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Given it was William Lane Craig, it was straight-up sceptical material. Combine that with the bruising street philosophy LessWrong trains one in, and it's lotsa fun - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a passing interest in LW, but about 95% of all discussions seem to revolve around a few pet issues (AI, fine-tuning ephemeral utilitarian approaches, etc.) rather than any serious application to real life in policy positions or practical morality. So I was happy to see a few threads about animal rights and the like. I am still surprised, though, that there isn't a greater attempt to bring the LW approach to bear on problems that are relevant in a more quotidian fashion than the looming technological singularity.--^talk 11:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because in practice, "politics is the mind-killer" is the mind-killer - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Having just spotted this section: This. Explains. Everything. ^moral 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is funny, because transhumanism/Singularitarianism is fundamentally a political movement, though I prefer secular religion. Or, what Armondikov said. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, for the record, I'm only a fanboy over the 2007-8 stuff that came out of Overcoming Bias, I'm not selling my body to fucking cryonics any time soon (not least because I don't have that sort of money going spare) or wanting to pledge my savings to researching AI. ^sshole 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be hatin' on the AI! Cognitive science needs your money! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

PD-US

I thought that only applied to the federal government? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 22:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The easiest answer is to change the template - all laws or proposed laws at any level of govt in the US are PD. we also want to remove the category "public domain images" from that template, as these aren't images. i'm not confident changing templates. GodotGrow a vagina 22:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

From my reading on wp it's not quite that simple. And what about the DI's model bill - does that count as 'proposed'? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 22:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

US laws, state or federal, are public domain. If a model code is turned into a law, the law is public domain. if an industry code is adopted by reference as law, the industry code in question becomes public domain. Other state works vary. Model bills not yet adopted, dunno. State Bills that haven't been made laws yet ... hmm, yeah, that's a tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It actually *is* that simple, because the public has a right to know about any bill being discussed. all sessions of government are also public documents, as are all minutes. otherwise, we could have no say in our proposed laws.GodotGrow a vagina 23:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it needs its own template then.

Regarding the DI model bill - a model bill would not become PD, but the bill presented of it would be a copy, and that copy would be PD. (Yeah, you can tell I've been on Commons a bit. Geni may be worth pinging re: this stuff too.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's a lot simpler than all that. The few states I just checked have Freedom of Information statues that create a presumption that all records in the possession of the state are subject to inspection and copying. This is of course subject to a number of exceptions going to protecting individual privacy interests and the like that aren't relevant here. Anything provided by to a legislator in his official capacity is not different than anything else in the possession or control of the state, such as minutes of meetings, contracts with vendors, records of payments, etc. As an attorney, I would be greatly surprised to hear an outfit like the DI complain that we are reprinting the contents of documents it promulgated to a number of state legislatures that are therefore subject to various Freedom of Information, Public Records, and Open Meetings statutes. 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(I'm not a lawyer, I only ply one on tv), but rest assured, these people are EXACTLY that annoying. they don't like that people know that one company/group is writing all of these anti immigration, anti evo, or anti abortion bills. colorado got sued by a CA group, cause CO release all the documents related to a new tax initiative. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 01:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So should we make a 'US law text' template, explaining that we claim fair use in the unlikely situation that the text is not PD? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense but you're not getting it. It's not an issue of public domain, which is a license granted by the author either expressly or by implication, or fair use, which is a defense. If a statute says we get to copy documents in possession of a state, we get to copy documents in possession of a state. Give me a list of states DI submitted "Academic Freedom" statutes to and I'll do however many FOIA requests. 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd highly be surprised if I did get it... While I could potentially go over each of the bills on the NCSE's list to see which appear to be descended from the model bill, I wouldn't know how to find out who they actually submitted the thing to. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is basically, the second anyone talks (in writing, anyhow) with a government official - unless it's about privileged info (and the kinds of things that are privileged are specific employee matters, specific wages, atty-clnt privlidge, etc) it's FOIA able. if you already have it, you don't need to even bother with FOIA. ie., we have it legally, it's not copywritten.--GodotGrow a vagina 01:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey sorry I was such a dick, Peter. 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add that the public policy behind FOI statutes is sunlight on the work of government and all that. I haven't checked but I'm fairly sure they address intellectual property rights beyond the contents of documents created by or submitted to government. So for example, a corporate logo on a invoice submitted to a state isn't fair game. I'm not even sure I'd agree with Gerard that an industry standards document that's adopted or incorporated would necessarily be fair game, but that's not what we've got here. Just clarifying. 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia treats such adopted codes as PD-equivalent: [3] "According to the 2002 United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision 293 F.3d 791, once a coding model has been accepted as statutory law, the document loses its copyright protection and becomes public domain." [4] It's clear enough for the copyright paranoids of Commons - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian culture

So, you have discovered chalga. Was it painful? :D --ZooGuard (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And I thought British pop was shit - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring. Care to discuss the content?

Blind revert, i.e., no explanation, no attempt to extract value from the edit. I think your edit was made before my explanation was posted to Talk. Would you be willing to look at that and comment? Thanks.

Otherwise, I think you have damaged the skeptical position that the article properly takes for RationalWiki. Bollocks is bollocks, and makes the wiki look bad, should anyone actually know the situation. --Abd (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. You got kicked off Wikipedia by persistent cold fusion crankery, starting again here is unlikely to take - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You have the history incorrect, but so what? You are welcome to keep your insanity where it belongs, in your head. It's sure not anywhere else. Now, don't you have anything better to do? It's already on the Talk page, this was a courtesy notice. --Abd (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounded a bit threat like. "this was a courtesy notice". I know nothing about this topic and won't butt in, but if an edit war starts, i'm likely to side with David who's been here a few days, and made one or two edits, than I am for you. I'm not saying this cause I *will* but in, but rather cause I suspect most of us around here feel the same way. --GodotGrow a vagina 03:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A mind wanting to believe something can always invent evidence for it. There was no threat in "this was a courtesy notice." Just a fact. It's useful information to me that there are users who will "side with" a user based on user status rather than content. Very useful. Just a fact. To the extent that this is so, there goes the wiki. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia -- it doesn't need to sound encyclopedia-like. Fanciful, circumlocutory language isn't what we want. An American Nihilist (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are enjoying yourself, thanks for letting me watch. It's great amusement at this distance. Don'tcha love RationalWiki? --Abd (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

no, unreadable

Lol only if you have it installed! ħuman 02:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gold Birth control/abortion type article

David, I'd like to get one of the BC/Abortion/Repuke men want to control my uterus! articles to a cover level, and would love some starting advice. I know I'm not as good a write as you all, so it will defiantly need the lookie see by some of you all, but I also have never really focused an article for "gold" standard before. So first question is, what topic (in light of the american war on women) do you think is the best to focus on for a Gold, and 2 will you help me look at what needs added to any such article? Godot What do cats dream about? 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea, I'll see if anything occurs to me. And of course I'll review, rewrite and polish. A reasonable pipeline for taking articles to feature would be a damn fine thing for us to evolve, and it starts with the ambition to get them there - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

unprotecting things

I have to disagree with you unlocking that stuff. The vandal could very well strike up again and there's no reason for a BoN or unconfirmed user to edit those pages.--"Shut up, Brx." 09:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

YMMV. I'd rather we default to wide-open - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed my talk page comment

I'll assume this was a mistake, right? It disussed neither white supremacists nor Jews. Godspeed (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, how the fuck did I do that. Musta hit down-arrow at the wrong moment in the summary box. I mean YUO AR A NAZI AND WE ARE ONTO YUO FACIST yeah. Sorry about that, I was actually trying to remove the spurious cover nom - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think I agree with you on removing the nom. Godspeed (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If the area weren't all set for a hideous upheaval, I'd have nominated it already. Still, let's see how the guy who just spent years of his life getting two degrees in an apparent pseudodiscipline goes ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving to the forum

OK, if you want to move it back, so bit it. But it wasn't TL:DR that made me move it, far from. I thought that a conversation that interesting, that detailed and that well argued should be preserved somewhere where it could be found rather than disappear into the talk page archives. Bob Soles (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries - it is a bit ludicrously long, but that's because WickerGuy doesn't say in one sentence what could be said in ten paragraphs - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of that about. ^sshole 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's hardly a rare skill - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"You're just fucking wrong..."

Your reply to my post was archived before I read it, but I feel inclined to reply. Before I try out any of the template replies you suggested, though, I need to know if you were accusing me of lying or of ignorance of the subject matter. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just perfectly normal deep stupidity - David Gerard (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Would you care to elaborate? Do you think, perhaps, that all the sexists who apparently run rampant in my academic department and workplaces took particular pains to conceal their bigoted expressions from me? ListenerX^TalkerX 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you just post about how oppressed you are - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be very difficult, as I do not consider myself to be oppressed.

Now are you going to explain your reasons for thinking I am so profoundly stupid, or can I add argument by assertion to the lengthening list of template replies/fallacies you have employed in this discussion? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going for "argument by too stupid to talk to", but I'm sure you'll crap on the board and declare victory regardless - David Gerard (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I am heading for a victory by default, since in lieu of making arguments you have said very little besides variations on "You're stupid." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw your posts on the recent Wikipedia Signpost

I'm not sure this is the best place to discuss it, but I tend to find RW a more comfortable forum environment than WP itself.
In any case, I've been pretty confused by the community response to this mess. It's amazing to me that the signpost has gotten in on the act in the last month or so, clearly pushing the CREWE 'line' article by article. Naturally - given the doublespeak inherent in the profession - this is all done under the guise of there being "real concerns", or in order to "improve Wikipedia" and "solve COI issues", etc. WP has real power these days; not only does it help shape minds, but it factors so prominently in search results that every SEO genius is looking to make their mark. Hell, even when I was helping manage a small business a few years back, I was constantly accosted by SEO companies (just by virtue of having a website with a business number) mentioning Wikipedia. Given both this and the reputation-crushing experience factual WP articles can have on certain corporations, it's really no surprise that they also want in.

But unlike the vast majority of websites out there, WP has the power to support itself without advertising. That's something that I've always admired about it, and I really worry about what kind of negative influence mediation between WP and PR officials would have. On one hand, WP is an encyclopedia that should be written from a NPOV; on the other, WP doesn't exclude anyone even when they have a clear POV - as long as they're not overtly pushing that POV. Of course, given a lot of the behavior on WP regarding skirting around this rule, it's hardly worth even having it. The real irony is that as long as you act like a PR official and cleverly disguise your true intent, you get to stick around and fight your cause. That's part of the reason there are these intermediary groups now. They provide the Wiki-know-how, the tools and tricks needed to prevent paid advocates from just blindly going and pushing their POV, edit warring, and eventually ending up blocked.

Maybe I'm a bit too hard on this issue. I personally find advertising and PR to be distasteful by their very nature, partly due to my experiences with the business I mentioned earlier (made worse by the fact that I'm good at it). So, since I hold WP to a high standard despite its faults, whenever I see a Wiki article written like a company's mission statement it hits quite the nerve. Q0 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor

Ever bumped into this guy on Wikipedia? --ZooGuard (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuh - David Gerard (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So what are they like?

You wrote on LW that you attend their London meetup. I wonder, what are they (LWers) like? You are somewhat skeptical of some of their popular memes, how do they take that? Are some LW meetupers more skeptically inclined about the singularity and the rest? How many of them are like Muehlhauser (believing the SIAI is saving the world and all that)? Is there much of a crossover between LW meetupers and skeptic meetupers (skeptics in the pub or whatever else there is)? If so, is there some sort of correlation between skeptic meetupers and a less Messianic view of LW/SIAI (or perhaps even a more messianic view of it?. Please just don't tell me that they are geeks, because that's such a vague word.--Baloney Detection (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

They're remarkably strange in person. They wear dark brown robes and always make odd hand gestures and say "Peace Be Upon Him" when you say the word "Yudkowsky". ^postate 01:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I know you are a heavy drinker of LW kool-aid and the premier apologist for it here, but this is supposed to be a serious question.--Baloney Detection (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I can give you a report on the NY chapter...for a fee, of course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please scarp the fee, I'd love to hear!--Baloney Detection (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I am Idiot number 59. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thing

This is my favorite thing on Wikipedia for the month. I wish editors wrote more articles, only to run them through Google translate, as they clearly did with that one :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats.

Married life is pretty cool, if you like that sort of thing. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 21:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've had the equivalent since early 2006, with small child since 2007 ... - David Gerard (talk)

I have no real evidence for this assertion, but I figure it's best if you do that first and then mess around with the paperwork. There can't be anything worse than a perfectly fine relationship spoilt because engagement/marriage actively changes everything! ^theist 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism

So, you're making edits contrary to reality, deleting useful clarifications, refusing to discuss it on the talk page AND labeling them "minor" edits"? You clearly are displaying contempt for civility. If you make further edits without engaging in good faith discussion on the talk page, or continue labeling non-minor edits as "minor", I will bring this up in the chicken coop.Fdof (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I have started a CC topic on this.Fdof (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose keeping your edits is a legitimate purview of local government - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops

You just lost the argument. Tisane (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You forgot about Maratrean's Law: Being an adherent of Maratreanism causes you to lose all arguments forever. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Still, it's not all that uncommon for someone to hold some correct and some incorrect beliefs. In fact, it's probably universal. Hence the fallaciousness of poisoning the well. Tisane (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See stopped clock. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, facts have no place in RationalWiki now?

Could you explain why you reverted my edits of the Bitcoin article? I understand I wrote them hastily, so they might not have been in the great form, but I was just correcting mistakes. Mining difficulty is determined by how long it takes to solve a block, not by how many blocks have been solved; and there it is nothing but speculation that Bitcoin was designed for the purpose of being a pump-and-dump, though I agree that such a scenario is very possible and should be disclosed to be completely honest, but just saying "It's just a scam, idiots" is also disingenuous. --24.10.60.171 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Theology

I added to the theology article. Can you improve my addition? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I took your additions out. It makes no sense in a theological context to argue that it is not scientific, or that some theologists are claiming to do science. They aren't. they are doing theology. to not understand that, is to miss a huge point about theology - that it is distinct because it is at it's core, about something you cannot see, touch, taste or experiment upon. Despite what you seem to think, theologists are neither stupid, nor illeducated, nor unaware of what science is and does.--Godotrien ne marcherait 19:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There are people claiming to do Scientific Theology which supports the reference I used, Theology, Apologetics, and Religious Philosophy, Same Questions & Topics, Different Motives. Godot is knowledgeable but she's not omniscient. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give a reference showing that theologians don't claim to be scientific. I'm not keen to accept your authority unsupported. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the Theology article,. You were right to prune the 'See also' but I put Courtier's reply back as there isn't a link in the text. I hope you don't mind.

Can you suggest any text/texts I can read that will help me improve the theology article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Tech

You probably know the drill. Тy^{GO AWAY} 20:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I'm looking through the server and writing documentation. Probably the only documentation - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bringing civility to the wilds, its a big task. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Check the patches directory in my home (I think it was called patches), those are the patches to MW core I wrote, with some documentation. One of them is not needed in MW19 any more (mediawikiwiki:Manual:Hooks/PlaceNewSection, used by mediawikiwiki:Extension:PlaceNewSection, used on User talk:Javascap), another one is a patch that sends a 304 not modified status message in case of raw javascript and css when the page has not been modified (this already worked for wiki pages, but not for &action=raw that's used by scripts, it prevents re-downloading large scripts, like navpopups, every single time you load a page on RW), but that was written before ResourceLoader, so I don't know how that'll work or if it's needed any more. Actually, I just checked, and load.php always returns 200 with cache-control max-age:0, might be worth investigating that, as caching scripts could significantly decrease page load times, especially with heavy gadget users. I though ResourceLoader was supposed to handle caching. -- Nx / talk 06:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you. As Nx learned, it's a mostly thankless job that is nonetheless vital to the wiki. Be aware that your efforts are sincerely appreciated.--^talk 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also very thankful. I had long heard tell of the time-vampire that is maintaining MediaWiki, and had feared the wiki would slowly crumble without an available server guru to hold its hand, but now I feel much better knowing we are in your capable hands. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a sort of vampire made of jelly, capable of absorbing an apparently-unlimited quantity of wooden stakes - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Baraminology - an extraordinary claim

Hi David. I noticed your suggestion to add to a section of the Baraminology artice. However, I have responded by adding an (even more lengthy) suggestion to add a rather more substantive portion to the article, exposing Baraminology as an 'extraordinary claim'. Given that the article is high status, I really don't want to do this without a serious discussion. I believe that we have all missed the issue here, and that the principle of Baraminology lies at the core of creationism; without it, they have nothing on which to deny evolution. But the claim is breathtakingly audacious, and if true, would be truly paradigm-shifting, as it asserts that something truly remarkable is certain, and can thus be regarded as a Law of Nature. --CatWatcher (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dolphins

They're coming for you. statement^word 12:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But, Flipper! FLIPPER! - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But it gets worse. There is no escape from the horror. statement^word 12:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you undo all my changes to mental illness denial? Dirk Steele (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you're a dolphin - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Donating money to the SIAI?

Just curious, have you ever donated money to the SIAI? Have you considered doing so? Not an unmotivated question. If I'm not mistaken, Alexander Kruel has donated twice to it, and he is a pretty harsh critic. Not sure what he thinks it contributes to, but still.

You seem to be very much less harsh about LW on their site than on RW. Is this correct? Or have I simply not read enough of your posts?

No, I haven't donated money to them. I have no problems with my level of harshness or not - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. As for "harshness level", I meant that you appear to be more critical of LW/SIAI/Yud when posting on RW than when you post on LW. But maybe that's a misperception on my part?--Baloney Detection (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I donated my left bollock to them on the off-chance it would prevent an Evil AI from making infinite simulations of myself and my descendants and torturing them forever. ^theist 23:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the gibbering fuck would I donate money to SIAI. What utter miserable failure of modeling one's fellow human would even make that a question. Fucksake - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email of such terrifying importance, that I don't once break out into lolspeak. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My watchlist

Yup, still doesN'T function. ħuman 03:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That was one hell of a typo. ħuman 04:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I know :-( The memory is back where it was before I reduced it, and AIUI your watchlist didn't work before either. Though fixing it if things are not completely pathological would of course be ideal. Just how many pages are on your watchlist? I did some tests with User:Divabot's watchlist, and I started getting broken watchlists (white page, no data) somewhere over 15,000 pages - though Divabot didn't give a log entry about running out of memory the way your watchlist's breakage does - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Donating to Wikileaks

Your mentioning of WikiLeaks on your user page inspired me to check it out, and now I want to donate to it, but the PayPal thing isn't working. I live in the United States. If I mail U.S. currency to WikiLeaks down in Austrailia, would it be a waste of good money? Any other ways to contribute that you know of? 69.194.230.43 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dunno if they can take US bills, and Assange is currently holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate has the easy ways to donate - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just donated 10 Euros, thanks. 69.194.230.43 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sophisticated theology

An important section was taken out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Google ranks the Sophisticated theology article in Pharyngula Wiki above the article you wrote, see Google on Sophisticated theology. Can you improve the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

since when did we care about Google rankings? Sophie^Wilder 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We've always cared about Google rankings. You know, so more people visit the site? Every so often tmt starts a bar topic about how so and so article is high up in google rankings and needs work or something. See here--"Shut up, Brx." 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My point though isn't so much, "hey lets get this article to rank high on google," but rather "hey, this article ranks high on google, is back linked a lot in forums and blogs and its not very good." It's about marking articles that are "first impression" articles and getting people to improve them. Its not SEO. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article you started on Doreen Virtue is now high on the first page of Google, see here. Can you improve it further? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Close enough--"Shut up, Brx." 18:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO our article on Sophisticated theology is the best available on the subject, i.e. the phrase. I get our article second after that one; I would guess that one has more incoming links, as one of the few collected web sources on the phrase - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

187...

Hi David. I resurrected 187 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid because I think it's worth listing the underlying quackeries as a placeholder to fill in the redlinks. There are a goodly number which are common forms of cancer woo that could do with articles. JzG (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Godot removed it but I couldn't be bothered going back to list and fill them all in. Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We're filling in some of the redlinks now. JzG (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have sent you an email

The title. Humorless fascist^sociopath 21:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Got it, contemplating it - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I know you have more important things to do. Humorless fascist^sociopath 22:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Just 'cos I've got the keys to this thing doesn't mean I've a fuckin' clue what it's doing - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, I didn't really need that. Humorless fascist^sociopath 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod nom

This is a courtesy call to let you know that someone has nominated you for moderator. Please go here to accept or reject the nomination. Cheers. Blue (is useful) 10:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Board nomination

I nominated you for a seat on the board. 20:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

HITLER was elected - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Trent mentioned your ambivalence about following in Hitler's footsteps given your other obligations, but I thought I'd throw it out there since your experience, attitude, and energy would be invaluable to the RWF. Consider it. 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If all else fails, we can always bribe him to run. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There'll be rum and classic rock in it for you. ^gnostic 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

IP information

You might well be right that "Whois info" or whatever is public, but you should be aware that there is a specific section on this in the community standards RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Privacy. If you suggest that this policy is wrong I suggest you take it up at that relevant talkpage and propose an amendment. --Damo^Hi 09:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That says it's a dick move, not ZOMG SUPPRESS. It was a dick move (as it looks like Paul realised), but useless suppression is security theatre, which is stupidity - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy that. Why did you revert it and make a big deal out of it? If an IP wants to edit they should be allowed to do so without people pointing out who they are, where they are from or even if they are using a proxy. That is a pretty fundamental principle of this place, and one that I hope would never change. It should not have been posted and you should not have reverted it without specific cause. --Damo^Hi 09:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course - reverting it back was a bad idea. However, gratuitous suppression is actually stupidity. We're not LessWrong - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are LessWrong noted for their censorship? I don't follow the place but that surprises me a bit. --Damo^Hi 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lesswrong#Roko.27s_Basilisk will define the site as long as it's the logical consequence of their ideas - David Gerard (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That could be the funniest thing I have read all year. I had planned on checking that site out, but I don't think I'll bother now. --Damo^Hi 02:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod

You're a mod.--^talk 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

HITLER! HITLER! Ah well. Thank you all for your confidence :-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to being oppressed, as always. JzG (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Pibot / talk / contribs} 06:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Third party

Rob and ToP asked me to officiate the bet. All is above board (I mention this as you asked about it). Aceⁱ⁹ 00:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? Then, speaking with my mod hat on, fuck Rob (though I'm not going to lift a finger to enforce this opinion) - David Gerard (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

he only has 30 or so hours left. Then we get to enjoy his witty banter once more. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't wait! ^{[citation needed]} - David Gerard (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Carbshark

You may have missed it, but I'm working on an overhaul of the Low Carb Diet article that Carbshark is running amok through. I'll probably have it finished sometime this week. In the meantime, I say just let him play.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

w00t, that's one! does listing it in an "intelligence report" deem it a "hate group" per se?

AFAIK, te SPLC doesn't have a list of "hate sites" per se (like its list of [http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map hate groups). If you want to be uber-accurate, you could say "the SPLC listed (name of site) in a report on misogynistic web sites." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. The peacocking is part of the general problem with the new text - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Silly

You irrational morons no... invalids.... actually I think idiot would be best. 99 percent of the greenhouse effect is WATER VAPOR the atmosphere has 336 parts per MILLION CO2. Look at the ice record! PROPAGANDITES ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.122.76.98 / talk / contribs 2012-12-31T04:30:17‎}

Also, time is actually cubical in nature - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you take into account that Ancient Aliens are the arbiters of time, and that they built the Great Pyramids, and that the great Pyramids use their rays to influence all aspects of our lives, then you'll come to the conclusion that time is pyramidal. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Another pat on the back, sir

Thank you for setting up RationalBlogs and, more importantly, thank you taking on the thankless task of being a Sys. Admin for this humble website. I think I speak on behalf of the whole community when I say that it's a damn good thing we have you around. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Reading the blog now. Subscribed. Good stuff.--^talk 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Others who think they can write are welcomed!

At some stage I'm gonna dare tell PZ ... the Gator hosting should probably hold up, tho' Nutty (who's paying for it) is looking at other hosting options - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll move it to EC2 if they have shell access. Sort of a pain to learn how all these proprietary things work. 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

They do, and a pretty standard Ubuntu 12.04 image is one of the many on offer. Don't forget to set the DNS to 300 seconds 24 hours before the move. Also, Amazon's DNS management interface is lovely, we use it at work. They charge by byte of DNS info, though, so set your TTL back to 24 hours after the move - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I just asked PZ to plug it. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not melted yet ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Seems like he linked to rationalblogs.com/rationalwiki, which doesn't redirect anywhere right now. Blue (pester) 23:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I fucked up the first time, he was kind enough to also post the correction. Holding up so far ... WP Super Cache is goddamn brilliant - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What is it up against? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

122,000 followers of @pzmyers - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's doing fine. I gotta get Google Anal going for times like this. 02:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The WordPress inbuilt analytics are not bad too - David Gerard (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Total hits from Twitter ... 52. Ah well :-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

While I remember...

...and while I am here. You do good work, thank you. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

People are being far too nice to me. I'll have to do something arsey again - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am the master of arsey behaviour. Let me know if you need some tips. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

Since this seems to be popular: i sent you an email. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Some BoN

Left you this message, though I'm not entirely sure if it's spam or not. Blue (is useful) 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

the terminology used in this blog is useless to normal readers-translation:UNCOOL ^{— Unsigned, by: 50.89.30.18 / talk / contribs}

Jargon flagging is a good thing - though more detail is obviously needed before I can fix anything - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blogs

I feel kinda dense, but how do you make a blog/account at the blog site?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For now, just email text to me and I'll put it up with a credit on the top (per Brendiggg and PeterL's posts) - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you can create an account anyway if you go to http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/wp-admin/ - but without any powers - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Email works great for me, right now. I break things. ;-) How longish - a paragraph. a page? I can ramble, as you well know. sometimes good. often not so much. heh.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Gawd, I dunno. Say five paragraphs, then extend or shorten to whether you have anything to say? - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Since i have you here: would a refutation of a website — basically a better version of an essay i wrote here a while back — be okay for a post? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Side-by-side format won't work, but hey, you can form a sentence, give it a spin - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why woudn't side by side work? Does Wordpress not allow custom HTML in posts? Blue (pester) 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It does, but the columns aren't very wide, and just imagine trying to read it on a phone - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A large part of "better version" means "not in column form", so it's all good. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

E-mail

I have sent my responses to your saloon post via e-mail. Please do let me know if you need anything more. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

\o/ I'll put that up shortly :-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, is there any way we can, say, put up a listing of the various RationalBlogs somewhere? Or do we have one already that I'm not aware of.... Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, isn't there just one so far? The RW one? The front end just redirects to the foundation website. Blue (pester) 08:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only RB-as-such so far. I need to compile a list of on-mission blogs by the regulars - there's a few. I'll prolly put a tentative list up on the Bar and ask for others - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was under the impression there were more than just that one..... Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Posted! - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proxie's writing

You reverted what I wrote. I'd appreciate constructive, tactful criticism. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your writing is bad, your logic is bad, your grammar is bad and your reference syntax was broken. These are broad and ongoing problems that would not be addressed by going through the details one by one and ignoring the big picture.

The ideal response would have been to rewrite it myself, a better than no response response was to revert to the last version by someone else.

I appreciate you sincerely want to work hard at this stuff, which is why the suggestion in the edit summary: work on this stuff in your userspace until it's not in fact broken then bring it to the talk page - rather than breaking the actual article - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

QuantumMAN

--Krej^talk 15:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blog

In this article on rationalblogs, the link to the Remus Cernea article is wrong.--Krej^talk 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA thank you!! - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

so, I herd u liek mudkipz chalga...

Due to your previous interest, here's a bit of local news: the major chalga-producer was about to receive money from the EU, and a lot of people threw a fit. The BBC decided it was worth covering. I must admit I was rather startled to see Azis on the BBC homepage...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

:-D - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The proxy blocker

Is kind of fail right now. Given that the offending edits all follow a similar pattern, why is an abuse filter not kicking in? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, creativity. I believe someone is working on the next response - David Gerard (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate limit

Is there a way to limit edit rates for IPs to, say, 1 per 10 seconds? Peter ^mqzp 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and its all ready in place but being bypassed some how. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. On that subject, do we know if the capatcha is not also being bypassed? Peter ^mqzp 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proxie's writing

You reverted what I wrote. I'd appreciate constructive, tactful criticism. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your writing is bad, your logic is bad, your grammar is bad and your reference syntax was broken. These are broad and ongoing problems that would not be addressed by going through the details one by one and ignoring the big picture.

The ideal response would have been to rewrite it myself, a better than no response response was to revert to the last version by someone else.

I appreciate you sincerely want to work hard at this stuff, which is why the suggestion in the edit summary: work on this stuff in your userspace until it's not in fact broken then bring it to the talk page - rather than breaking the actual article - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC) from [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=1145292#Proxie.27s_writing}

There is a meme round RationalWiki that can be summarised as “Let’s get Proxie for her writing etc.” Google ranks this article on Sophisticated theology high on the first page. Typically the Pharangula article comes just below the RationalWiki article and I wrote more than half. If my writing is so bad why is that article so popular? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Because there was no other good article discussing the actual history of the phrase until I created that one - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I believe the gentlemen at this rather liberal website are familiar with the level of quality necessary in order for material to get high rankings from the search engine beginning with G. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sex Dungeon

Now that I'm back I'm thinking of setting up a sex dungeon again. I hear you are quite the expert in setting them up. GhostofTK (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have something for you to blog about

Apparently CMI has challenged us to a debate. Of course, even though they haven't contact anyone directly, we're apparently "backing down". How you "back down" when you've never been contacted is a mystery to me. Not is there really any impetus to debate CMI when they could just as well come here. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming of course CMI wouldn't backpedal furiously from any attempt on Ken's part to claim their official endorsement. Creationists they may be, but at least they're slightly dignified about it - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For you

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Sterile has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!

%-D~ - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that a drooling smiley or a spunkncock? 19:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My rights at ru-rw

Hello! I've posted this message to Trent, but it seems he is to busy now. There are some pages at ru-rw, that I want to change, but I have no rights to edit them. For example, this and this. Can I ask you to give me an access for editing that pages?--Mr. B 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can edit those pages (i.e. I can edit in MediaWiki: space), but it looks like I don't have access to Special:Userrights in ru:rw. I'll have to fiddle with the database. I'll do this later, when the kid's asleep ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to access to Special:Userrights in ru:rw. User rights management in ru.rw is performing at en.rw.--Mr. B 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That means giving you moderator rights, which is the subject of stupidity at en:rw ... I'll just be a moment - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm copying this to RationalWiki:Technical support, because I don't understand what's going on - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Twitter/Facebook sync

Just disconnected the RW Twitter page from my Facebook account. You'll have to do so with yours. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I've been flooding your FB? Sorry! - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Facebook can only automatically post tweets if you link your own Facebook friend account to the Twitter page. It's not a very good system. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI: You'll have to do that with your own account (or create a separate one). Otherwise nothing will show up on the RW FB page. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been doing this stuff by hand and I should automate it rather more. G+, that's a real nuisance - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

AI

I don't know whether you're actually interested in AI and machine rights or whether it's a simple case of obsession with LW, but if it's the former you may be interested in Silver Screen by Justina Robson (Amazon). I stumbled across my copy last night and after a quick refresh realised it's relevant to the articles you've been editing. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it looks like he's only obsessed with LW. That's a shame because I thought it was a decent book. Prodigal (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Roko's basilisk is a ridiculously popular article right now, 'cos it's being pushed by the Internet hate mobs of both Warren Ellis and Charlie Stross, so I've been trying to get that into some sort of shape where an ordinary human could understand wtf (it's not there and this may not be possible, because it's a stupid thing made of stupid parts). And keep RW from falling over. And do blog stuff. And and and. Thank you for the tip :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for featuring Littlewood's law. One of my favorite articles I started. ^talk 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be a bit of a hit, too - 1800 hits today - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

page importance

Do we have a list of pages people are actually going to? and by people, i mean "not us". I noticed that "woo" is only a bronze, when you pointed it out, but is it a term that is actually searched and that is visited? It seems, and maybe this is done and we just don't highlight it with editors enough, that we should have a listing of pages "new uses" or "unique visitors" are goign to, so we can make those a focus of our attention. (If my question is rambly or redundant, just ignore it. i'm kinda 'all over the place' today).Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your question is absolutely apposite, and we don't have a list but we do have the log files to make such a list from. Someone needs to bother. I might put a general call on the saloon bar - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidrama

I found myself commenting on the same page as you today. People may come and go, but the drama remains the same. VOX^HUMANA 09:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Particularly given Coren came in as part of the batshit insane 2010 arbcom, by which time it was politicians all the way down - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd put it earlier than that, only people hadn't fully noticed. Certainly in 2009 there were improper, behind the scenes things going on to ensure future arbs like Shell looked good for the election. I find it ironic that Shell ended up resigning anyway. VOX^HUMANA 09:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I was an arb in 2005 and stayed on the lists until 2010. I watched it happen from the inside. Trouble is I can't actually think of a less worse alternative to the arbcom - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh you were still on the lists? Oh well, then you know all about it. You poor bastard. :) But yeah it's like any democracy I guess, it's the worst form of governance except for all the others. VOX^HUMANA 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Confabulation

I'm going to attempt a nutshell version of the confabulation article for Rationalblogs sometime soon. What do I do with the finished product -- essay space it here or e-mail it to you? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Email to me is fine. If you think you'll do more than one I can even make an account for you - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure -- I might do some more. As for citations, do I just use HTML? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just plain HTML, or you could even use the visual editor if you're some sort of pervert. I tend to inline citations, footnotes are too clumsy and not clickable enough for blogging. Email me at dgerard@gmail.com with your desired username and display name and whatever - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sent. Hopefully, that shouldn't be too bad -- I cut it down to about 1/3 of the original article and edited for flow. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You did a great job, and I enjoyed reading about it.--^talk 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Einstein image

Is this image on RW, or just on the blog? I'd like to use it in an article.--Krej^talk 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just on the blog. PNG version here. Base image is File:Albert Einstein, by Doris Ulmann.jpg from Wikimedia Commons, public domain - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it!--Krej^talk 01:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I did that one really quickly, I do have an improved version in mind but it's 1am here! - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. TheSocktor (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Click here to save everything

This reminded me of one of our favorite websites. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So Sunday and Monday I discovered the likely immediate source of treating "I predict you by simulating you simulating me" like something humans could actually routinely do - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead links list

I put a page up to make it easy for people to work on them and dropped you a YAML link dump at the end. Let me know if you want it in some other format. 03:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RW Blog

I'm thinking about writing something about the Streisand effect in a few weeks - especially when it's cultivated to spread misinformation. Are there any submission policies I should watch out for? Osaka Sun (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not yet :-) Mostly just WRITE STUFF - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Squid caching and shared hosting

Can it be done? I once saw a support discussion where someone asked about caching options, and Godaddy's response was that they didn't have caching options and that the admin should upgrade to VPS or dedicated. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 18:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much right. It's for people who have a popular enough site that they should be running things personally - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this seem at all slow for you? It seems slower than some other smaller wikis I've set up, though Google tools and stuff don't seem to complain much. http://www.sturmkrieg.us/Special:Random I entered $wgMainCacheType = CACHE_ACCEL; and it seemed like it worked a little, but I'm wondering if some sort of cache might be necessary. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems usable to me. A nice way to speed up MediaWiki if you don't/can't put a cache in front is the file cache. Worked pretty nicely on RW before we got the Squids - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What a wonderful year it has been...

Especially with the slaughtering of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh, the Boston Bombings, the recent deaths of many Mexicans, the NSA viewing our records.--142.4.210.12 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Moderator elections

You have been nominated. Also, I'm getting 500 errors on the blog - what's up? Peter ^mqzp 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The blog runs straight off the Apache server, not through the Squids. So its fuckedness is all its own and I have NO IDEA what it's doing wrong. But I have broadband at home, so now I just need time to think and investigate - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Linode affiliate link

Could I get an affiliate link that gives benefit to RationalWiki when someone buys from it? Are they one time use or expiring or would I be able to put it on my website as a way of supporting RW? –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I just found this one. https://www.linode.com/?r=1098a79230220fa89df39ac0d29bb2bc7c8c67dc I'll put it on my user page for now. Would we be able to put it on the main page by any chance? –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 00:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't put it on the main page myself. (Though you could run it past Talk:Main Page to see what people think.) If we have a page about our technical setup that would be an appropriate place - David Gerard (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WIGO blogosphere

I am guessing you were only wanting to comment out the Williams rape story. Putting the 'old' like this -- old> at the end of the tag then seemed to take out seveal other votes. If you were meaning to comment those out as well my appologise and feel free to revert my change. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, well caught, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Email

Yup. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:Reddit.

I've responded to you on Talk:Reddit. Please see what I have to say. Thanks.—Chbarts (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Moderator election

You're stuck.--^talk 15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm thrilled! - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Email

You has one. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Installing Squid

When I install Squid, do I need to configure all the websites and virtual hosts to use it? –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Buggered if I know, Trent actually set it up. We just use the Ubuntu squid3 package. Here's squid2's squid.conf, very little of which I have actually looked up to understand:

debug_options ALL,1 33,2 28,9
http_port 80 accel defaultsite=rationalwiki.org vhost
cache_peer 192.168.162.183 parent 80 0 no-query originserver name=rwiki
acl blog_sites dstdomain .rationalblogs.org
acl our_sites dstdomain .rationalwiki.org
acl our_sites2 dstdomain .rationalwiki.com
acl our_sites3 dstdomain .rationalwiki.net
acl privateip dst 192.168.0.0/16
acl myaccelport port 80
http_access allow our_sites myaccelport
http_access allow our_sites2 myaccelport
http_access allow our_sites3 myaccelport
http_access allow blog_sites myaccelport
cache_peer_access rwiki allow blog_sites
cache_peer_access rwiki allow our_sites
cache_peer_access rwiki allow our_sites2
cache_peer_access rwiki allow our_sites3
cache_peer_access rwiki allow privateip
cache_peer_access rwiki deny all
cache_dir ufs /home/squid 15352 16 512
cache_mem 512 MB
icap_uses_indirect_client off
strip_query_terms off
log_mime_hdrs on
logformat combined %{X-Forwarded-For}>h %ui %un [%{%d/%b/%Y:%H:%M:%S +0000}tl] "%rm %ru HTTP/%rv" %>Hs %<st "%{Referer}>h" "%{User-Agent}>h" %Ss:%Sh
logformat pagehits [%{%d/%b/%Y:%H:%M:%S +0000}tl] %ru
logfile_rotate 999
access_log /var/log/squid3/access.awstats.log combined
access_log /var/log/squid3/access.pagehits.log pagehits
forwarded_for transparent
visible_hostname squid2.rationalwiki.org

- David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Linode

Linode's websites seem to be inaccessible. Both their manager and the forum are down. Rational Wiki and Sturmkrieg are still up though. I've been having trouble all day. Have you noticed anything? This is right when I'm trying to make an account for my friend to manage his domain I'm going to give him. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Cartoon

Do you think I could take this cartoon, slap a fair use template on its File: page, and add it to the appeal to nature article? I think it makes a pretty good point, and we have a copyrighted, fair-use comic strip about gun control by Tom Tomorrow.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 01:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Fair use" is a defence if the person doesn't like you using it. I expect with full credit we could get away with using it, but if they didn't like it we'd take it down quick smart - David Gerard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Blog post proposal

Would Essay:The Futility of Anecdotal Evidence be good enough to be published on the RW blog?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 05:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Go for it! - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you make it so that the image of lead appears on the main page? I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. :(--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 20:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)