User talk:HeidelbergKid/Archive1

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

Welcome to RationalWiki! Тy^talk01:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button:, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Scream!! (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Please read Help:References -- Nx / talk 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thythop

You have it. Be good. If you can't be good, be good at it. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not

what hiderevision is for. Why did you do that? 20:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've unhidden it. Totally over the top revision hide. Scream!! (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you want to test something, there's a little button with the word "preview" on it that might help you with that...--★uːʤɱ heretic 20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for that whole issue. I was trying to add a citation for where I found that mtEve lived 150,000 years in Kenya in the Great Rift Valley, and I was having some difficulty because the bottom section was entitled "References" instead of "Footnotes". It took me a while to figure out what was going on. Seeing as my struggles ultimately did nothing and that the only other changes I made were typo fixes, I didn't see them as really being important enough to include in the page history. Thanks for mentioning the "preview" button: I never paid any attention to it before. Nothing malicious. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured that was why. It's a natural impulse. I'm sure at this point you're wondering why 3 people immediately jumped on your talk page to tell you how it is. That's how it is. Lamentable, but true. So yeah, have a look at thesysop guide for more complete guidance on how that tool is used. Have a nice weekend. 20:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Article rating tip

If you go to preferences > gadgets > editing gadgets, you can enable HotArticleRate for an easy way to rate articles Blue (pester) 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A clue from Blue

I appreciate that you've devoted time to improve the mainspace on this wiki, which is, contrary to what people might tell you, a fantastic use of time, especially when you have other work to do in real life. However, being a sysop does not confer the prerogative to delete articles without a discussion and vote, especially when the article (Iron Age, for instance) hasn't been nominated for deletion and/or has been around for a while. Blue (pester) 02:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And that's not to say there aren't some things you can -- even should-- delete right away and without comment. But it's really asking yourself "what is this artcile for". if you come up with ANY idea at all, you should post to the talk page. The other reason people delete without comment is if you have moved the content to another page. Had you built a page on "ages" and said "the individual pages were too stubby, this brings them all together", then copied what was in "iron age", you'll likely not even get notices or even get pats on back. But just uniformaly deleting is usually a bad thing to do. Hell, ask Blue, but even our attempt to clean up fun space met with lots of challenges. and those articles were as bad as they get!GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Eve

I posted a rather lenghty comment about the kinds of things we need to do to Eve, to get her up to shape for a Silver article. Mary Magdalene not even a bronze, has a start to the kinds of questions that make a good Silver article. But she, too, has never really been developed. --GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is how

you create a new wiki --Mikalosa (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wanna take bets on how long it takes before this turkey plays the"I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki" card?B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, be nice. He makes some contributions, everybody reverts them. He defends his contributions, and everybody shits on him. He's upset. He's new. It's understandable.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

see, brx, here's my issue. it's not that he shouldn't be upset, it's that he really doesn't see what people were saying. I've written more than my share of shit that was flat out removed by Human back in teh day. it stings. i get that. but i didn't try to say it was good, i asked why it was removed, and reworked it. ok, i'm cleary worse off for being on this already failed diet. i'm bitchy as all go. No wonder i was whining so much about AD's removal of my temptress stuff on Eve. you all are out to fuck with women, i can tell. heh.--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Give him a day or too, he'll come around. Also, Human edits like a drunk rhinoceros and generally refuses to consider improving on the contributions of others--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I both love and hate Human. And not knowing him, but listening to the rumor mill, i suspect my views of him probably align with his particular um... 'state of mind'? GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Human is wise and kind. Ace^ace 02:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ec PS - though that is where I learned to "win" in an edit war by just shutting up, and coming back 2 months later. heh. Usually, when other people have opinions, I just back off. Cause i rarely care that much about an article. In the case of, say "eve and the temptation issue", i think that will be something i work out through an essay, cause i really hate the way AD has made the story all even and only slightly misoganist... But it's not worth fighting for that view, when I can say it elsewhere, and maybe better.GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright status

Hi there. Please get your images set with a copyright status. Thanks. B♭maj7 (talk)Anachronistically anachronistic 18:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, next time you upload an image please copy and paste the url of the original (I know, it's a tremendous amount of work, so I wouldn't ask you if it wasn't important), so I don't have to use tineye and other tools to track it down and determine if it's copyrighted or not.-- Nx / talk 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I did link to the original. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

South Korea, the mission, and all that good stuff

It's true that South Korea doesn't really have much to do with the mission, but most of the other country articles we have don't either. If we were to get rid of South Korea, we might as well get rid of most of the other countries. I don't think many of us would want to do that.Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you won't. Тy^talk 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Another editor agrees this is off-mission. He states the main reason we aren't deleting it is because it would mean deleting most the other articles on countries, and most users would not want to go through and delete each individual article. Since others don't want to do the job, I volunteered myself. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting to do the work of deleting the articles isn't the reason people aren't doing it. Country articles, even though most don't directly connect with the mission, have stats and stuff showing religiosity, etc. The rest of it is a nice supplement. Sam ^Tally-ho!03:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need those charts and small supplements? It and much more is all available on the big wiki. RW is not an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is. We should stick on things on-mission for the mainspace. Perhaps things like the SK article should go in "offmissionspace", kind of like essayspace, userspace, or funspace, so we have a place to put all these articles on RationalWiki which aren't relevant to the mission but aren't essays. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no rule that says we can't have off-mission articles. The mission is a guideline to help us focus and find writing/discussion topics. It's not a test we subject articles to. Blue (is useful) 03:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

...the code mission is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black PearlRationalWiki, Miss Turner Heidelberg Kid! Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue (is useful) 03:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think that most of the country articles are off mission, and being "off-mission" has historically been a reason for deletion or sending to the ill-named funspace. They could be brought on mission though by mentioning the influence of things like creationism and fundamentalism and by linking to skeptical groups in those countries. I tried to add some of this toSpain.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing offmissionspace. It's for articles which are off-mission, but don't fit in essayspace or funspace. I'm calling attention to this article. I want to see it expanded on so it's on-mission, or I'm deleting it. The deadline's whenever I get around to it on December 6. Could be 12 AM. Could be 11:59 PM. So you have about 1 1/2 days. That should be enough. ^{— Unsigned, by: HeidelbergKid / talk / contribs}

Here's a novel thought - YOU'RE the one getting your knickers in a twist over this - YOU expand it. One thing you won't do is delete it. Fucking n00bs turning up here with demands. You're worse than Brx. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bitching about an article's missionality a week after you were outvoted 4-1 on the same damn question?

The term "concern troll" comes to mind. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The vote was to keep and expand. So far, nobody's done the expanding, I'm sure as hell not going to do it because I wanted to delete. If nobody else is willing to follow through with their promises, I'm going to follow through with mine. The Heidelberg Kid(talk) 18:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's another promise for you: I'll desysop you if you delete it. -- Nx / talk 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No you won't. 21:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

HK, if you'd added stuff to the article instead of bitching and moaning about it not being expanded... Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to try. I'm calling out all these articles because I'm afraid if I change anything, others will just turn it into something totally different and yell at me. I'm scared. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Also, it used to take three sysops to agree before an article was deleted, and even then only if nobody voted to keep it. if that happened, there'd be a vote - which WE'VE ALREADY HAD. So shut up about this. Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

I have nominated your userpage for deletion because it is off-mission. It does not meet any of our four mission goals, so we need to either delete it or move it to a new "Offmissionspace" "Assbuttfacespace". In the event this vote is four-to-one in favor of keeping it, I will wait a week and then delete it anyway because it still needs to be expanded.--^talk 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete

1. --^talk 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Blue (is useful) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
3. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Ace^ace 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Тy^talk 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• We need to come up with a funnier name than "offmissionspace." Blue (pester) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--^talk 20:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Move to assbuttfacespace

1. Obviously. -- Nx / talk 20:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardy har har. I get it. But userpages aren't mainspace so aren't subject to the mission statement. Do we really need to do this? Anyway, I didn't even create my own page. Some guy who doesn't like red links did. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a joke. But in all seriousness, people have lost their sysop rights for deleting articles without a discussion, because it is strongly discouraged. You should read the sysop guide and the community standards again. Blue (pester)22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And don't hide revisions or log actions unless they contain sensitive personal information. Blue (is useful) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss!

Articles have talkpages. Before you go moving and/or deleting shit you need to check those out. Srsly. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 01:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So...

You gonna make a userpage or what? The red link is an eyesore. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

[1] are some ideas for content. I suggest the one with the 8 guys in lederhosen. Might make the page more lively. Sam ^Tally-ho!22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please

Stop making unilateral decisions. Try adding some content. Create an article, add extra information to an existing article. No more deletions, moves, complete rewrites, or any of that. Please--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're telling him this? You're kidding right? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On the right track

I came to tell you that you are on the right track. The problem is you get way too involved/attached to things you write. Just keep writing. And if you think something should be deleted, don't listen to folks who say "quite listing things for deletion". it's your opinion. you may be wrong, in the sense that the community decides against you, but that doesn't change anything. You have a view, you have a right to a view. If you have an article you want to write, write it. But don't freak when it gets changed. (and it will, EVERYTHING does.) Others have said that one of the best things to do is to edit existing articles and I mostly agree. What are areas you think of as "a specialty?" something you have read a lot about, especially things you've read recently. (for example, I edit religion articles, mythology, native American, and all things Feminist!!!!). if you find areas you really know about, work on those. there are sooo many articles on here that suck! Another good thing to do is work on adding citations to any article you like. Like say you really enjoy something about physics... go find an article and add citations. or, look at anything in "category:stub" and hit wiki and improve it. Just don't let what we say get to you, and it will work out. Good luck. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you...

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

read this again, thoroughly. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And I recommend that Mikalos lern 2 spel. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching anime at club atm and its dark, screw you--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm celibate :-P Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww =,( my hopes dashed agin--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My dreams of being porn director. Ruined. Oh well. Back to Anime. Not to be mistaken with Hentai. --Dumpling(talk) 03:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the fanart, they're the same thing. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

LIES, SLANDER, AND TENTACLE RAPE! D<--Dumpling (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Look Kid, you asked in the SB how you might do better, people replied but you don't appear to have taken on board any of the suggestions. Read it all again and try to comprehend what people are saying. First of all, RW is a wiki which is a collaborative endeavour. People edit for the enjoyment of improving the project because it is roughly aligned with their own ideas and interests; it's not a place to showcase your own talents and win plaudits. The only place you get to show off and not expect to be reverted is your user page, you cannot own articles because you think they should be done in a particular way. Those who have expected some recognition have been left sadly disappointed, the best you can hope for is to be elected a moderator which would at least show that people admire you for your reasonableness and not pissing off too many people.

Now I understand that if you are a genuine Aspie then you may have problems with social interaction and empathy for other people, as well as maybe reading things a bit too literally and seeing things more in black and white rather than a continuum of greys. Like your views on capital punishment; people can end up killing others for a whole variety of reasons ranging from accident, a tumour in the brain, carelessness, self-defence, a sudden bout of anger, to outright malice aforethought. It is not unknown for authorities to fabricate evidence and you could end up being found guilty just because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is very rarely an outright wrong or right position so we have to work together to come to a consensus, or in the case of a criminal jury, an overwhelming majority because the penalties are much more severe.

You don't need to start a topic in the Saloon Bar, just join in with what other people are talking about. Do you have any other interests such as music, games, books, movies; because you could use them as a base for establishing a rapport with other editors. The main thing is that RW should be a place where you want to be, not something to be changed into what you want it to be. Steven Kavanagh(talk) 10:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Gas Giants

If you want to use the image you uploaded then please respond here. Генгис^evolving19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just use a picture of Human. He's the largest gas giant on the site :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.}20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you uploaded another image to the Velikovsky article as US PD, please indicate where it came from so that the claim can be verified. Not every image on. US gov website is PD. Генгис^evolving 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Voila. The big wiki said it [the Lunar and Planetary Institute] was NASA-funded, so they are presumably affiliated. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See that little (c) notice at the bottom of all their pages? that probably means something, you know. Rennie McGreet (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NASA funds the world - that doesn't mean the world isn't copyrighted. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pet Peeve.

Don't do this. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do what, specifically? Create new articles? Create stubs (like a lot of now-rated articles started) to be expanded later by all of us? What did I do? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He means that nothing links to it, and that it is thus not "wanted".

You have a lot of pets there, Mr Foster. How much do they cost to feed? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please to create a link to the article in question. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you need a time out?

'cause I'll give you one. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically we had a vote that resulted in 5-2 in favor of deletion. You can't really blame HK this time. Blue (pester) 02:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I just felt like waving my e-peen around read it quickly and wasn't paying close attention. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

Please try not to knowingly create stubs. If you are going to work on an article, that's fine. If you want to start an article, that's fine. But make sure you plan to finish it, and not leave it a lonely stub. GodotGrow a vagina 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought we're supposed to just put an infinite number of articles on here, regardless of quality, since RW is an encyclopedia and deleting anything is bad. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Who told you any of that. GodotGrow a vagina 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. Генгис^evolving 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Links in. Links out.

Soon. Or it dies. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Words of advice

1. Stop jumping up and down every 2 minutes going "look at me, look at me." We read recent changes, we know you're here.
2. Stop posting inane shit as a way of saying "look at me look at me!" Examples[2][3][4][ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#How_do_I_earn_respect_on_here.3F]
3. A lot of people on the wiki have been here for a long time. Yes, there is a bit of clique here. Think of them as an old grumpy bull dog that's not going to tolerate a puppy yapping at their hills. (hint: you are the puppy)
4. Contribute constructively. Suggesting that articles be deleted is not being constructive. Maybe read the editing guides again. Discuss on the talk pages.
5. Chill.
6. Think thrice. Write once.
7. Join in conversations and participate intelligently.
8. Conversations / threads are not a vehicle to divert attention to yourself.

Hope that answers your question. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Read

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

again and again until you can recite it by memory. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

stop saying

"i cant believe we dont have x!" make the damn topic then.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Mr. Kid, human interaction in groups is inherently full of contradictions, and knowing how to navigate those contradictions is a complex faculty. Some are better adjusted than others. Personally, I'm closer to you and Sheldon Cooper than most other people here. I'll tell you exactly what to do: observe others. No matter what people have told you thus far. Do not ask people what to do, use other editors as examples and copy them. I was a lot like you four years ago. Trust me, wikifriends require much less maintenance than real life friends -they're relatively simple to keep around if you make them accidentally. So take a step back. Evaluate your "style" in comparison to the editors you want to emulate and make adjustments - but don't be vocal about it. Blue (is useful) 01:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm an expert on all things wiki, but have you ever played the game Mao? Might help—it's a metaphor for life.-- Seth Peck (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Content advice

• Don't put multiple navigation sidebar templates at the top of any article.
• It's {{mathematics}}, not {{maths}}. Blue (pester) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(It was MATHS (which is much easier to type) till Ty changed it to mathmeatics, which some of us can't spell. grins)GodotGrow a vagina 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you are tempted to add a second template, look at the categories. those might need updating. Your axium for example is part of math as well as logic, and it wasn't part of the "category" math. GodotGrow a vagina 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Listen kid

NOBODY is on you're side on this, NOBODY. Does that NOT give you pause that nobody he is backing you up on that being Parody? Does being the lone defender of a view not make you wonder "hm... maybe im wrong on this."--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Two things:

1. I wasn't being the aggressor. I just moved Project Pterosaur and realized I could do the same for OM.
2. I thought about that. I'm not going to pull a Galileo gambit or Argumentum ad martyrdom on you. I'm going to simply state I considered that, but then reviewed the facts and theory, and decided I was right despite being a minority.The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus freaking christ, Mikalos, just because the guy's really noobish doesn't mean you have continually tear his head off. Sam ^Tally-ho!03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This method of teaching has provne successful for me before, i see no reason it wont again--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Chill the fuck out Mikalos. Your inane comments often annoy me esp. when you were stalking Rob for fuck knows why, and when you were gloating on and on about your godforsaken sock at CP (congratulations on managing to sign onto a website). The worst thing HK has done so far is make good faith, but sometimes prolific and annoying edits. Ignore them if you need to, I know it's harder for you because you havn't had as much practice at ignoring your own -often- retarded edits. Tielec01 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not "teaching", and it's never proven successful. If HK is a troll, you're bying into him. If he's truly who he says he is, lay off. either way, you all have told him it's a poe. what the fuck is the big deal if he doens't agree. GodotGrow a vagina03:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why this is for us: 03:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

MOVED - IDEA

Idea!

In computer ed class, I was bored out of my wits. We were going over the basics of how to use Microsoft Word, something which probably all of us in the room had been doing for years on end, and has a handy button shaped like a question mark to explain without having to waste 40 minutes every day. I was told I couldn't go on the Internet, and I typed qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcbnm repeatedly and "goat" on my keyboard in succession with my eyes closed. I opened up Microsoft Paint and began doodling about. I came up with something very vaguely reminiscent of the immune system. I built on the idea, drawing in more random shit, until I came up with an ad hoc explanation of homo-toxicology. I'm thinking of learning HTML (so I can actually learn something in computer ed) and making a Poe website, e-mailing code back and forth between home and school so I can keep working on it. Do you think I should do this? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A web site that demonstrates Poe's Law? Blue (is useful) 06:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'll poe the hell out of homo-toxicology. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be noticing a pattern here over the last couple of days.

Most of your edits are getting reverted pretty damn quickly. Maybe you should re-read the user's guide or something. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 15:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you see me complaining when you revert any of them? No. I know you don't give a shit. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Please stop adding your comic sans additions to the Animal Farm article. They are redundant as the changes which you are attempting to insert are already covered later in the section. Генгис^evolving 10:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

If you are going to make a new article, please take the time to make it a full article, not just a stub. If you intend to make this recent one a full article, accept my applogy for jumping the gun. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgiven. I don't exactly have much time right now. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where our annoyance with stubs has come from. The relevant user guide has no objection to them and even tells people how to create them.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cause they look bad, frankly, and generally it means another author has to write the entire thing over, not knowing where the stub writer was going. If the topic is really well met by a short article, that's one thing. but just filling in red links with 2 sentence that someone else will have to fix, is making more, not less, work for everyone. Again, if HK's intent is to go back and flesh it out a bit more, that's one thing, but if not, it's as if he hadn't even written it, cause some other author will have to learn about the topic, do the same research and writing as if it hadn't been written. GodotGrow a vagina 18:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Giving a few citations would help later researchers, btw. Especially in the places marked. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If stubs are no longer acceptable then we need to rework the help files to say so. Alternately rework the instructions to explain the minimum quantity of information and minimum quality requirements of stubs.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!}20:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stubs are always acceptable; but that acceptance comes with the idea that either it's such a easy to write concept others will be able to fill it in, The creator left sources for others to use, or that the person who made the stub was going to fill more in Later.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like stubs. On some topics a paragraph or two is OK, but jotting just a couple of lines & leaving it is just wasting the reader's time (as well as other editors') & makes the wiki look shoddy. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From the Animal Farm Article

You believe An idea can only exist when it is first made public/blah? Well, here's my crappy attempt to explain this to you: I put my Henai Religion building here (partially in protest to hosting of Maratreans crap); but that doesn't mean Henai was created on that day (Although the real world variant on it was),. The first real basics of that religion date to 2010; with some basis in 2009/8 and the foundational idea's in 2003/4ish/ The idea dates to a vague period of development between those two dates; not simply when I TOLD people about it (which would actually be 2010 as i discussed it with other people then)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Another way to see it is that generally, people are talking about ideas with others, to hammer out what you want to write. It is doubtful that communism was Marx' unique invention. He probably sat around with other brainiacs and said "what would be a better system", and someone offered this idea, and someone else offered that idea, and he added his own ideas, then sat down and formalized them. So generally talking about "when an idea came into existance" is an era, or a time frame, not particular dates. (well, except for "Classical Music" for some odd reason, which started with the death of Bach. "what-evah". ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The two primary influences on the core ideas of Marxism, as I understand it, were the philosophy of Hegel and certain theories of race struggle developed in that period. As to the Communist Manifesto, it was commissioned to describe the philosophy of a movement already existing, but it was very much a solitary piece of work: although Marx tried to share credit with Engels for it, Engels was having none of it.ListenerX^TalkerX 03:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Aristotle and the Greeks more generally--he wrote his dissertation on Epicurus, the works of the utopian socialists (Proudhon, the St. Simionians, Blanqui), and the political economy of Smith, Malthus and Ricardo. P-Foster Talk"Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Animal Farm again

I hate to stick my gigantic face in where it is not wanted, but can you please stop edit warring the Animal Farm article? Reiterating Genghis' point above, when editing a page take a scan of the whole article to avoid adding material which is already covered. Also we generally avoid adding more than one topic template to an article, as it doesn't look very pretty. I have to agree with Mikalos where pinpointing communism as a whole to 1848 is a bit over-specific. If the sentence read "...Karl Marx, the writer of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and one of the first figureheads of communism", it could work, but otherwise it uh... well... doesn't. SJ ^Debaser 12:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Denisovans

The bio classes at my school are organising a trip to see a lecture on them in a few weeks. Depending on what I hear there, I might start an article for you. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit of serious advice.

As a minor, attaching your real name to an online community where grown-ups sometimes use grown-up language to talk about grown-up things is inadvisable IN THE EXTREME. If that is, in fact, your real name, I urge you to remove it and keep it removed. You do not want future employers, college admissions boards, scholarship people, and girlfriends' fathers to Google you and end up reading one of Ace and Nutty's interactions, or anything written by Rob, or us making fun of Ken. Really, you have nothing to gain by letting people know who you are IRL.P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that! I had to work hard to remove my real last name a year ago, cause i wrote an essay on abortion in a fit of anger. You just don't want your real name attached to things where you can be judged. GodotGrow a vagina 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kthx. Best! :) The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to oversight the affected pages? Генгис^evolving 19:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching you, Foster. 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

categories

by the way, the link of "essay space cats" can be found at category : essays. (no spaces. I don't know how to void out wiki marking, though I know there is a code for it.) most of them are things like "art essays" "anthropology essays" "abortion essays" etc. GodotGrow a vagina 18:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I was told you do Category:Essays and it should work. let's see if i can follow directions. NOte, there is not a cat for Anthropology. If you want to, you can just add "category anthropology essays" and then write something short in the red link it creates. GodotGrow a vagina 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand what peer-reviewed scholarship in a real journal entails?

As far as anthropology goes, it starts with a complete mastery of the both the theoretical literature and basically everything that's ever been written about whatever narrow little field you're working on. That takes a good 3-4 years of 60+ hour work weeks to do. Don't forget the intense language training--the world doesn't work only in English, right? Then you go to the field for research, usually for a year or so, often much more. Then you start writing. You do not submit something you pulled out of your ass for a joke website after reading some Jared Diamond. Not trying to discourage you, just pointing out the realities involved. P-Foster Talk"Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Pfft, you can totally pull something out of your ass and get it published. Just submit to as many 3rd tier journals as possible or try to sneak it into a journal that's tangentially related to your field just enough that the reviewers will miss blatant errors. Now if you want to publish a good paper... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Or just get your phd in Religious studies. no way do we have that kind of problems. we just write shit, and they publish it. :-) --GodotGrow a vagina 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you were looking for theology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Something you need to stop doing.

See here. References are for references, not for parenthetical stuff, which is what parentheses are for. Thank you. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I always kind of associated Eastasia with North Korea.

Really? Why would North Korea have figured prominently in Orwell's vision in 1948? P-Foster Talk"Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's that I kind of imagined in my attempt to see how 1984-history and real history branch off, that it turns out that China does get invaded in the Korean War, World War 3 breaks out, the war goes nuclear, and the Party is able to rise to power. Not to mention with some of North Korea's actions, it's like they were trying to become Eastasia. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Ty^Annoy 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

UM, see, you don't get to do that. You have to analyze a text within the context of when it was written. Korea doesn't have any identity outside of it's relationship with Japan, till 48 or so. And to be frank, it just wasn't on the radar of writers at this time, who were dealing with China and Japan. but hey, why read within context, huh?GodotGrow a vagina 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1984 is alt history now? Copperhead^Hisssssss 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate history's the wrong word. I mean, fictional history or then-future now-fictional history, or something like that. Basically, take Fictional History X and Actual History (represented as A) and attempt to see how A could have leaded to X, but didn't.The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1984 is in the same Genre Fallout is in in terms of Histoy; Although i personally always maintain that OCeania consists soley of Britain shelling itself while the world just sort of ignores it--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Evo template

I like the changes you made, "people" and "pseud", but you need to include a section of the random articles, so our other stuff gets read. GodotGrow a vagina 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

you should probably

stop messing with Navs and putting them places; as those edits tend to be reverted--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Detention

One sidebar template/article please. Also, try not to replay to conversations that are years old. Ty^Annoy 15:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand...

I get that you are not good with subtle cues, but lots of the things you are changing here have specific reasons for why they are the way they are, based on rhetoric, political games, and even sometimes just in-jokes. We are not a medical site, and don't want to put % effectiveness, cause what we are trying to do is not inform people about which BC to use, but to make a point about effectiveness of things like prayer. Titles like "spontaneious abortion" show that there really is a fuck load more abortions than the right wants. GodotGrow a vagina 04:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

heres the numbers

Almost perfect (sorry Mary) (~100% effectiveness)

Abstinence (voluntary or involuntary) is completely refraining from sexual intercourse. It works by depositing no sperm within the vagina to fertilize the egg cell. This method is almost 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, with a few exceptions in mythology. Generally, abstinence carries no risks, but may cause a degree of psychological frustration and short sightedness. This method also may lead to more pregnancies since abstinence only education, most often supported by the religious right, provides no education regarding preventing pregnancy or disease if passion unexpectedly gets the upper hand.[1] These "education" programs often actively discourage the use of contraception that is known to be effective, particularly by twisting or quote mining the data on effectiveness or even by outright lying about it. Other sex education programs, ones which aren't endorsed by the religious right, teach abstinence in combination with conventional contraceptives and disease prevention methods.

However, saying that abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy is a bit like saying that condoms are 100% effective when they do not fail. When abstinence does fail (which happens a lot, due to human nature), there is absolutely nothing preventing pregnancy or STDs - unless some form of contraception is used, which it often isn't due to the narrow scope of sex education provided within abstinence movements.

Abortion is not a form of contraception, since it is carried out in response to a pregnancy rather than to prevent one, but is still a highly effective method of preventing a live birth, although in a few exceptionally rare cases, a child aborted late in a pregnancy has survived. Abortion laws and methods vary around the world, as do social and ethical attitudes towards abortion. In a few countries, such as Russia, Turkey and parts of Eastern Europe[2], abortion is seen as an accepted choice for birth control, and women in former Soviet States have been quoted that state paid abortions were easier to get than prescription birth control adding to a culture of "abortion as birth control".[3] In China abortions are often mandated to enforce the one-child rule. In most other countries, the emphasis is placed on the prevention of pregnancies and abortion is used as only as a last resort to terminate an unwanted pregnancy when other alternatives were unavailable or failed.

Vasectomy is a procedure in which the vas deferens (the ducts that carry sperm from the testes to the prostate gland in the male) are cut, a small section removed, and the resulting ends sealed off with small stainless steel clips. It is nearly 100% effective. This method prevents sperm from entering the semen, but carries the obvious risk of (usually) irreversible sterility. If performed by a completely incompetent doctor, however, sperm can still reach the prostate, and thus escape the male's body to potentially impregnate a woman. Also, vasectomies have been known to reverse themselves.

Tubal Ligation is a similar method of sterilization for females. The oviducts are cut and sealed, preventing eggs from reaching the uterus. Although having nearly a 100% effectiveness, as with a vasectomy, if performed incorrectly, an egg can still pass through. Unlike a sperm count after a vasectomy, there is no real test to determine the success or failure of a tubal ligation other than the lack or presence of future pregnancies. For couples comparing, it's worth noting that tubal ligation is an invasive abdominal surgery, with high risk factors, while vasectomy is a much simpler and cheaper outpatient procedure. Highly effective (>90% effective)

A contraceptive implant is a set of capsules of progestogen implanted into the upper arm using a needle-like applicator. The hormones function similarly to oral contraception, but without the need for daily pill ingestion. Because there is no action on the woman's part, human error is not an issue, making the implant the single most effective hormonal birth control[4]. Unlike the oral pill, it is not affected by antibiotics or sickness; however some HIV and epilepsy medications can reduce its effectiveness. The implant lasts for three years, and is over 99% effective ("Less than one woman in 1,000 will get pregnant in one year."[5])

The intrauterine device, or IUD, is essentially a plastic-and-copper coil inserted into the uterus by a doctor. The device itself generally acts to prevent sperm from reaching the egg. However, as the constant light abrasion of the device irritates the uterus it triggers an immune system response that prevents implantation of any fertilized eggs. This method of contraception carries a slight risk of uterine infection, and is about 99% successful in preventing pregnancy. And as Dr. House explained, the patient may become sensitized to copper and develop a full-blown allergy to it.

Oral contraception is a hormone-based female contraception pill. The hormones prevent the anterior pituitary from releasing follicle stimulation hormones, thus preventing the ovary from preparing the egg for release into the Fallopian tubes. The drug is taken daily for three weeks then one week of placebo or nothing for the body to expel the built up blood lining the uterine wall. This method is around 99% effective if the medication is taken as prescribed[6] (important note: it clashes with some antibiotics, rendering it ineffective). Furthermore, you may have to shell out like 300 bucks for mifepristone if this shit doesn't work.

Depo Provera is a injection of a progesterone-like steroid for women which lasts at least 3 months, and is therefore given 4 times a year. The hormone functions like the other hormonal methods mentioned above. This method is also about 99% effective.

It should be noted that even when the odds of getting pregnant on correctly used hormone contraceptions are 1 in 1000 (99% effective), with over 50,000,000 American women using birth control each year[7], 50,000 women in the United States will still face an unwanted pregnancy when they've done "everything right".

The condom is the best known form of non-hormone based contraception, which is a latex (or "lambskin", or other synthetic plastic) sheath rolled over an erect penis, which traps sperm before it can reach the vagina. Since latex condoms also trap most bacteria and viruses, the condom is highly effective (and very recommended) in preventing the transmission of STD/STI. The usage of sheepskin condoms, although still effective at preventing sperm from reaching the vagina, have pores large enough to allow viruses, such as HIV, to pass through. Condoms carry around a 98% success rate against pregnancy when used correctly[8].

The female condom is a liner fitted into the vagina before intercourse which prevents the sperm from progressing past the cervix. Like latex condoms, the "female condom" prevents STD/STIs. Female Condoms should not be used in conjunction with a male condom, as the two latex surfaces will stick together and increase the risk of tearing, thus removing all protection. As with a male condom, this method carries about a 98% success rate. Modern sex ed courses that are not based on Right Wing fear tactics suggest that either the female or male condom should be used at all times even if the woman is on another form of birth control, since this is the only known method of birth control that prevents STD/STI.

Another female method for preventing pregnancy is the diaphragm, which is a latex cover for the cervix inserted into the vagina before intercourse. The diaphragm prevents sperm from entering the uterus. Combined with an application of spermicidal jelly, mentioned later, the effectiveness is around 90%. An oddity worth mentioning is that lemons were used in the 1700's as a diaphragm, and modern science has discovered they are effective at killing sperm and the HIV virus.[9] However, other studies have concluded that lemon juice can damage vaginal tissue, so lemons are probably not a wise choice for the educated woman. Reasonably effective (>80% effective)

Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) also known as the "morning after pill" or the "Plan B pill" is a special class of contraception that is designed to prevent a pregnancy resulting from a single act of unprotected sex.[10] There is a very short window (generally 48 hours) in which it is effective. [11] The pills act to prevent both the fertilization and implantation of the embryo. It is distinct from abortion as abortions are by performed on a pregnancy which is by medical definition, after implantation. Examples of these pills include levonorgestrel (progestin) which are 89% effective, and mifepristone (These are used only at selected countries as ECPs) which are about 83% effective at ECP dosage (10 mg).[12]

Taking the diaphragm a step further is the cervical cap, which is a cap held by suction to the cervix, also buttressed with use of a spermicide. This 85% efficient method has a possible link to cancer of the cervix, owing to the application of cell destroying chemicals right onto the cervix.

Spermicides, as mentioned above, are products designed to create a hostile environment for sperm, which kills a large enough number to prevent the egg from being fertilized. Presently, there is no significant risk known, save for the aforementioned possible link to cervical cancer. Spermicides are usually used in conjunction with the various barrier methods such as condoms and diaphragms. In typical use, the most common spermicide, nonoxynol-9, has an 80-90% rate of effectiveness.[13]

Not very effective (<80% effective) Good advice!

Withdrawal of the penis before ejaculation, also known as coitus interruptus, is self-explanatory, and is intended to prevent sperm from even entering the vagina. If done correctly, this method is still only 80% [14] effective since even before ejaculation, sperm can enter the woman's vagina from the pre-ejaculate. Even though there are only a few drops of seman before ejaculation, with the high number of sperm in semen, that small amount in the pre-ejaculate is enough cause a pregnancy. The greater problem is the difficulty in "doing it correctly", since it depends on good timing on the part of the male at a moment when he is least likely to be thinking about timing. The withdrawal method is often jokingly associated with Catholicism[15], although the Catholic Church regards it as a mortal sin (See Onanism). Apart from its problems as a birth control method, withdrawal may also detract somewhat from the joy of the occasion (unless you're a bukkake enthusiast).

The rhythm method (a.k.a. "Vatican roulette") involves keeping track of the day of ovulation, and limiting intercourse to certain days of the month. It is the only method other than abstinence that is approved by the Catholic Church. There are two serious problems with this method of birth control. The first is that sperm can survive within the fallopian tubes for up to five days, and in some cases, up to seven. The second is that women can and do get pregnant while they are on their period, it is in fact, an urban legend that this time of the month is "safe", though it is somewhat "safer"[16]. Not to mention cases where people think "rhythm method" means something totally different. Done correctly (which is very difficult to do, as it requires calendars, thermometers, and calculations that would make a rocket scientists pull out his hair) is about 70% effective.

A douche is a method of washing out the vagina and uterus with water or other substances after intercourse, and is the least effective method of birth control, if it can even be considered a method at all. By inserting a liquid medium into the vagina, you have actually propelled the sperm closer to their target. Although this does remove some sperm, not enough is removed to make this a useful form of birth control. A product known as Dr. Bronner's Soap is essentially a woo flavoured douche based around altering the pH of the vagina, but this could be actively dangerous. Alternatively if the aim is prevent implantation of the embryo into the womb, it may have to be continued for prolonged periods of time.[17] Douching is less than 60% effective.

Herbal contraception is worth mentioning, more for historical interest than practical use. Various herbs, fruits and vegetables, including pomegrate, neem oil, marijuana, and wild carrot seeds are known to lower male or female fertility to some extent, and have been used for contraceptive purposes in the past, or in societies which do not have access to modern birth control products. However, their effectiveness is highly unreliable and does not compare favourably with modern contraceptive methods.[18]

In the Hunter Davies novel Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush, it was suggested that the radioactivity from a luminous watch placed by the testes for several hours would kill any sperm, and thus prevent conception. Unfortunately, modern luminous watches are no longer radioactive --and even if they were, hanging a lump of radioactive material around one's genitals would not be recommended.

Stubs

I get that you disagree about having stubs, but they are super bad when you "copy the big wiki and modified". If you want to write the article, take the time to do it. I will, again, apologize if you are intending to write a full article, but the last time, you never went back to it. GodotGrow a vagina 17:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, let me say it again.

Ref tags are for REFERENCES--i.e., footnotes that tell people where information come from. Parentheses are for parenthetical phrases. Get it right. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Faith Abortion."

Link to it from somewhere. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

side bar navs

not all articles need or should have side bar navs. So it's not just "find the thing it would best fit in", but rather "is this actually part of that side bar". Thanks. (ps, good changes on all the abortion stuff this am.)GodotGrow a vagina 17:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Listen

You've already been asked nicely, so now it's not so nice.

Get it out of your thick fucking head that running around deleting articles is a good idea.

It's not.

So, you either find some new way to entertain yourself, or you lose the ability to delete articles. Your call. --PsyGremlinFale! 18:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deleting articles for fun. I'm deleting them to clean up the wiki by getting rid of unneeded articles. Also, I'd like to turn that back onto the RW community since you deleted my slightly on-mission faith aborting article and I'm deleting irrelevant articles, e.g. Jamestown, Caesar, atherosclerosis, etc. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

While you do have major problems, ignore Psy, he's power-tripping and useless. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow Archie, first edit in a month - whose sock are you? HK - you might think you're helping, but you're not, and you're certainly not ingratiating yourself into the community. You've been told this umpteen times, why can't you get it through your skull? Give up on the article deletion thing. --PsyGremlinFale! 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh..power-tripping and useless. Heh. Ace^Moderator 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Faith Aborting

HK, im going to say this again: FA was not on mission, it isnt even a thing; because nobody is praying to god and having faith he is going to abort some babies. And either way we have Examples of god Killing people. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, 1) that situation's over, 2) that last statement assumes zygotes are people, which they aren't, and 3) there is an instance in thereligious right's own holy book where a guy's praying for God to do some aborting, among other things: Hosea 9:11-19.The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Try a different template

Now that you've mastered the {{delete}} template—and seeing as you seem to be having trouble with {{mothball}}—I propose you try out {{mission}}.

It's like the delete template, in that you put it up and start a discussion on the talk page. But instead of putting up an ultimatum the discussion is about how you—yes, you—could make the article mission.

I'd hate for you to get in a rut with just using the delete 'plate. Only trying to help... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Saloon bar

As a general rule, we do not remove talkpage comments. The Saloon Bar is no exception. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

im going to say...

we dont need a billion images on pre-natal development just for one article--il'Dictator Mikal 00:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I like having an image nearby to accompany each day. I like having illustrations. Even with an image for every day, which I plan, there won't even be 300 images. Server space has never been as issue on here AFAIK. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Server space has only been a vague issue for any self respecting website... but im still going to say we dont need a image for every day. that clutters the fuck out of the article and leaves us with a lot of images we have no conceivable use for. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the images to either side of the body text, so that it doesn't look messy. The only possible problem I can think of is how the headings can "fall into" the gaps between the images, but since they're the headings, that's not a problem. And there is a conceivable use for these images: for detailing what happens after conception. Pun intended. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded a bunch of images today with no copyright notice.

Please get the copyright on your images sorted out or they will be deleted. P-Foster Talk""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is one time, at least, when we have pretty good rules and guidelines on things for you to follow, HK.--^talk 01:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me how to change the copyright notices? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the image and edit it, then there will be a dropdown box to select the appropriate license.--^talk 02:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

1.You have to tell us where you got it from. 2, You can't claim "fair use" as a fancy substitute for "I wanna use it." "Fair use" would be, for instance, if you were writing a work of criticism about a photograph--not what the photograph is of, but the photograph itself, and using a low-res version of that photo to illustrate a salient point. What you're doing there is not "fair use," unless you got it from a free/copyleft/public source. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not using it just because I want to. It's because it's for educational and non-commercial purposes and doesn't use any "core" material: with the exception of the image of placental invasion, they're all just images without any labels. Sounds like fair use. All the images are from searching on Google's images. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Go to Wikimedia commons and get them there. At least one of them clearly said "Conception Center of Chicago" or something right on the image. Getting them from Google doesn't make it legal for us to use them, and fair use is narrowly defined--the educational angle has to be about the media itself, not what the media is about. Understand that distinction. P-Foster Talk""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Google images just searches through images that are publicly accessible: someone still owns a copyright on them. Instead, there are a lot of other images we can use that are public domain or with a similar license. As Foster mentioned, Wikimedia Commons is a great resource, and you will probably find anything you need there.--^talk 03:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What happens if I can't find an image that suits my needs? How do I find the right image? HELP! The Heidelberg Kid(talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The same thing that happens when I want to buy something that suits my needs but that I can't afford. I DON'T GET TO HAVE IT.P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Images do not have the same "for educational use" that written material does, because you really can't use it "in part", which is the requirement of fair use. GodotGrow a vagina 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for help, and maybe someone will be able to help you. Ask for help on the article or essay's talk page, if this is the case.--^talk 03:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so let's see. Let's say I needed an image of an egg enveloped by sperm. I go onto Google search and I find an image that would suit my purposes. I get out a pencil and paper and sketch the image, drawing as best I can. I then scan my drawing onto my computer and upload my drawing onto RationalWiki to use in my article. Would that be allowed? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I know it's asinine and probably will look terrible. You're better off finding an extant image.--^talk 03:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Or here.--^talk 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that you care, but "copying" at all is illegal. even if you are drawing what you see. You must be making some kind of artistic statement to do so, and even then it's iffy. you remember the famous Obama "change" image with the strange colors? That was a drawing taken from an AP photo, and it was in court for 2 years. dont' know if it was resolved by the Court, or by agreement, but the whole issue of copyright is pretty precise. esepcially with new laws like SOPA out there threatening to become valid. --GodotGrow a vagina03:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of those images are appropriate for what I'm doing. But how can I get the images I need if Wikimedia Commons doesn't have them? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"The same thing that happens when I want to buy something that suits my needs but that I can't afford. I DON'T GET TO HAVE IT. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC) " il'Dictator Mikal 04:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, what is it that you want, and why do you need them? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the above section--il'Dictator Mikal 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here.--^talk 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Baring that, you could go to school, get your hands on a fertalized egg, and take pictures. oh wait, not if you live in a personhood state. --GodotGrow a vagina 04:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you find an image that you think would help illustrate an article and you can't find a reproducible equivalent try writing/e-mailing the original author and asking politely if they would mind you using it and what conditions they might require regarding use/resolution/acknowledgement/linkbacks. I have done this on several occasions and met with success. Генгис^evolving17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking for permission is a good exercise. I know of one web site that does ask for permission, routinely. If there is no response, they go ahead, under a fair use claim. They are nonprofit, educational, and if the owner asks for takedown, they promptly take it down. The fact is that many publishers can't be arsed to respond to requests for permission, and they gain nothing by even responding, except a questionable increase in a right to sue the pants off of the infringer if they have refused permission. Frankly, I'd suggest, if the RationalWiki management or community will allow it, that you use the images, taking reasonable steps to satisfy fair use criteria, using a fair use rationale template, *and* ask for permission, then, for your usage, sending them a link to it. You would be saving them time, they could immediately see the use. You would never be found responsible for damages if you do that, unless the infringment was blatantly damaging. I doubt you would do that.

If the image you use is already available on-line, your usage is very unlikely to add to damage. But don't do this if there is any risk of actual damage to the owner. Keep a copy of your email and respond promptly to a refusal of permission. --Abd (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was following your beautiful essay, HeidelbergKid, and the images seemed like fair use to me, and necessary. The "no free alternative" is not a legal requirement for fair use, that comes from something else. This will really hinge on site policy, and I haven't found that yet, I just see a bunch of users shouting above. Legally, you could do what you were doing, if you do it properly, and you weren't, I think. That can be fixed.

Some have treated fair use as if it must meet every criterion in a long list. No. Fair use is not crisply defined like that. However, with images, "used in part" often means that a reduced-resolution image is used, so that nobody would prefer it to the original. If it's already a thumbnail, meeting that condition could be difficult, but there are ways around that.

Until and unless I know site policy, I wouldn't undelete the images, but, my guess, what's happening here isn't developed site policy, it's someone with no special authority saying My Way or the Highway. Or this site has just adopted WikiMedia Foundation policy, which isn't based on either protection of the Foundation or quality of the wiki. Just a guess. I'm confident someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I do see that there are highly experienced and helpful users commenting here, you can tell them by the tone. They are trying to help, not insult or intimidate. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

hey bro

you are apparently a very polarizing character and i respect that. i appreciate the time you spend here and i will speak up when the cabal tries to unperson you. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"outlines"

If you have a problem with outlines, you'll probably want to take it to the forums as a general thing. Cause we have many, and they aren't going to be deleted one at a time. I have no opinion, personally, but right now, outlines are the way these type of articles are done. GodotGrow a vagina 05:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just was hitting "random page" and happened to stumble across the article on meiosis. I'll set up a page and write something on the community chalkboard. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

i woudln't use the community chalkboard. that's for on going projects. use the forum. that's where we normally take this kind of thing.GodotGrow a vagina 05:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Files nominated for deletion

I've tagged several files you uploaded for deletion. Please see the following and argue on their own pages for why they should be kept.

• File:Finished chicken.jpg
• File:Genesis 2;20.png
• File:Poiuyt.jpg
• File:Tribar.gif
• File:Placentation.jpg
• File:4cell.jpg

Regards, Sophie^{because liberals} 19:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair use does not mean...

"i want it, it'd be cool for my humorous essay about blastocysts." Go and learn about what fair use is and is not. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

One, I know about copyright. Two, it's just an image I found funny and it's not for an essay, it'll be for an entire full-blown websiter. It's a teaser. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the goal, it remains persecutable copyright infringement. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 19:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fair use. I'm only using a small part of their information, and non-commercially. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're using it in a nontransformative role, fully cribbed from its original purpose as a micrograph of a 4-day blastocyst. That you are using it to illustrate a satirical document doesn't make it transformative, and it's very unlikely you could argue it was fair use. Beyond that, as I posted on the image itself, you're insulting the people who made it by refusing to acknowledge where it came from at the very least, not that that would change the fact that it is still copyright infringement. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not make yourself a blog, rip images from wherever you feel like, and watch copyright violation notices come in? The only difference here is that you won't be responsible if people start complaining we stole their images without attribution or permission. At the very least, it makes the website in general look bad if we have a bank of images that have no copyright information on and appears we didn't get permission to use. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Microbiology"

You might also like to add the author, publisher and page number to the citation. Thanks! Sophie^{because liberals} 18:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't have the book on me at the time and I didn't want to go on Amazon because I think my school has a policy against online shopping. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Do it when you get a moment at home. Cheers. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're STILL doing it wrong.

Do you see all of these red links? They indicate images that you have uploaded that have subsequently been deleted by other community members because they were in violation of copyright. In the interest of not creating work for other community members and of maintaining good vibes all around, I implore you to limit your image hunting to Wikimedia Commons, where there is never any problem. Thank you for reading this.P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried Wikimedia Commmons, searching "last universal common ancestor", got bupkis. I think it qualifies as fair use, and besides: I hate copyright. Information wants to be free! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. Тy^rannis 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because you can't find a legal alternative doesn't entitle you to ignore copyright. 2. That did not qualify as Fair Use, because they expressly said you can't use it. 3. Information is inanimate and is incapable of wanting anything. Like it or not, some information belongs to people, and you have to respect that. Understand that as a foundation with a legal personality, we have to take responsibility for what's on the site. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU WANT INFORMATION TO BE LOCKED UP AND STAGNATED! COPYRIGHT MUST GO DOWN! INFORMATION BELONGS TO NO-ONE! WHAT IF I SAID THAT I OWN THE FACT THAT THE SKY IS BLUE? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Don't be an idiot. It's not a question of what anybody wants. It's a question of what is legal. Do you want to see Trent have to deal with takedown requests? Do you not understand how selfish that would be of you? P-Foster Talk""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Laws can be unjust. There are countless instances through history of that. Why can't you realise the evil that is copyright and release yourself from your shackles? I am trying to, but you try to put them back on. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not. You're being a dick knowing that, should there be any comeback, you won't be the one who suffers. I know that asking you to grow up is asking the impossible but when everyone is ranged against you then you have to be pretty damn sure that you're Galileo. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read a little closer on the QuestionCopyright site, it's about encouraging people to free up their work to distribute it more effectively, it's not about you stealing shit that you can't be arsed to pay for. Grow up. ^sshole 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, since you insist on seeing the issue like a selfish kid and won't stop to consider the very real effects of your acts. Next time you upload an image that's a copyright vio, I will Coop you and ensure that your upload rights are stripped for a suitable period. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on him. "That did not qualify as Fair Use, because they expressly said you can't use it." Permission has nothing to do with fair use; it's related solely to licensing. Fair Use is a statutory doctrine that obviates the need for licensing under enumerated criteria. That's the analysis; and think about it: every resource essentially says "no permission granted for unauthorized use." If we were stuck with your analysis we'd be limited solely to the public domain as well as CC-SA type licenses. I'm not going to do his fair use analysis, but if consensus emerges that he's correct the fact that someone says you have no permission to use the material is perhaps an indication that he's litigious but otherwise irrelevant. "Like it or not, some information belongs to people, and you have to respect that." Exactly! But we're also allowed to look out for ourselves. Good research and analysis doesn't do itself. Obviously it takes trawling available resources and discerning whether and how to use them. What's wrong with HK's fair use rationale? 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem I see with the Fair Use rationale: Let's say Human takes a photograph of your Ferrari. It would be fair use to use that image in order to criticize it in an article about Human's work as a photographer; I'm using a bit of intellectual property to talk about that actual bit of work. I can't, as I understand it, use that photo in an article about Ferraris, because fair use is limited to talking about the work itself, not what the work might represent. I am, of course, willing to cede the point if I'm totally wrong, as I expect that they at least made you read the Cliff Notes on copyright law when you were in law school. but that's how I understand the situation.P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the specifics - just saying that permission is not relevant to fair use analysis. 17:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I concede that much. After all, that's why the idea of "Fair Use" exists--to allow people to use stuff even though permission is not expressly given. But as I understand the idea, HK would have to use the image in question to talk about the image itself, not whatever it was an image of. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the basis of the ruling with Imagine and the Expelled movie? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Expelled wins. Fair use was upheld because it was critiquing ideas contained within the lyrics. ^moral 17:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're the one who needs to look into the site some more. I've known about it for years. Copying is not theft, it's copying! They made a video about that. If I steal your bicycle, then you don't have one and you need to walk (win-lose). If I copy your song, you can still sing it, and now I can, too (win-win). The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you've never created an original piece of content in your entire life. ^bomination 16:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck did you reach that conclusion? The Heidelberg Kid (talk)

Because no one who had put hours of their own personal time into something would ever have such a flippant and immature attitude.^gnostic 16:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a lot of creating content. I've spent hours drawing pictures. I want my pictures to be able to be commented on, shared, built upon, etc., freely: I don't want to lock up information to let it stagnate and die. Copyright is censorship! The Heidelberg Kid (talk)

That's nice. However, other people have different attitudes about their work, and they enjoy the legal protection of their rights. While I admire your desire to challenge what you see as an unjust law--no, I really, honestly do--your tactics are wrong in that they put the burden of the consequences on people other than yourself. You want to be a modern day civil rights activist? Great. That means walking at the front of the march, where the dogs and firehoses are pointed, not hiding out in the back somewhere. Get your own server space, your own domain, and your own non-profit corporation, and fight from there. Not from our house. Am I clear? P-Foster Talk""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

HK, I rather like you, but you need to understand that your views won't get YOU into trouble, they will get this SITE into trouble. I happen to think that pirating TV shows is "no big deal". but if i do it, I'm the one who pays. If i put those pirated films here, then this site is the one who pays. Fees, fines and lawyers. Please understand, it's nothing to do with what could or should be the way the world works, but with the way it ACTUALLY works. Godot What do cats dream about? 16:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

After many ECs and rushing to take the wife to the doctor

HK, a while ago you asked how you might be more liked and accepted here. People are telling you what you are doing wrong but you are ignoring their advice. Can you not see how perverse that is? Генгис^evolving 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Once I learned essays exist on here and cannot be edited by anyone but the author, I jumped to make a place for my own article." "I hate copyright. Information wants to be free! COPYRIGHT MUST GO DOWN! INFORMATION BELONGS TO NO-ONE!" Pompous little hypocrite. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Information belongs to no-one, but we do own our names, i.e. attribution. Anybody can take my essay on Eve (which I mothballed, I might add) and make their own copy of it to modify as they want, but they can't have my name on it if I don't approve. If you want, you can take my old Eve article and do what you want with it, provided you don't tamper with the copy I had in my space with my name.The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We already have a essay on eve, its the main article you whined people dared edit.--il'Dictator Mikal 23:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Information belongs to no-one." You need to disavow yourself of that naive idea. My work belongs to me, and if you were to do something with it without my consent, I would bring the full weight of the law down onto your head. "Brown Sugar" belongs to the rolling Stones. It's theirs, and you can't do whatever you want with it. Property exists. Intellectual property exists. Deal with it. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anybody can take my essay on Eve and make their own copy of it to modify as they want, but they can't have my name on it if I don't approve." But your name is only on it at all because you made a big deal about copying it & hanging your name on it. It was supposed to be a collaborative article on a collaborative website. "but they can't have my name on it if I don't approve." How can you expect an author to influence how others use & attribute their work without copyright? "Essay:On the Origin of Human Conflict This page is copyrighted in 2012 by the Heidelberg Kid . . . All rights reserved." Hypocrite. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

", you'll see my real name in the peer-reviewed paper" wait, what?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Has it never occurred to you that a guy's ideas and opinions can change with time? I used to be naive about copyright. Then I looked into it, and hated it. And information belongs to no-one. You say it can belong to people? Well, I hereby declare I own the information that one and one make two. Every kindergarten teacher from now on must pay me a million dollars every time they teach it or I will "bring the full weight of the law down onto their head". Reductio ad absurdum. And, when I fixed my essay to show my true stance on copyright, I still was able to keep my name on it. I don't see any reason why you can't put your name below the title just because there's no copyright. And the author can recommend, commision, DIY, et cetera, to derive content from their initial "seed". If a work is good, it'll spread. If it isn't, it won't. Elementary memetics. The Heidelberg Kid (talk)

"Well, I hereby declare I own the information that one and one make two." Can you at least try not to deliberately sabotage your argument by making yourself look like a big dummy? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To "bring the full weight of the law down onto their head", you would have to convince a court that you have a legitimate basis for your claim that you own the information that one and one make two.© Good luck with that. Not actually very similar to situations where somebody has written or created something and can reasonably claim that it is "theirs". & Why do you keep talking about copyright in terms of information? That's not what it's about; it's about original works which have a clear author, creator or developers. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}07:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Question from the press

this seems a popular question to ask: Why are you here, what do you want to get out of being at a site most people only barely tolerate you?--il'DictatorMikal 23:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I agree with RW's mission statement and the fifth unofficial "mission statement" is to give people who agree with the first four, e.g. me, a place to hang out. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To interject: I think HKs antics are a lot of fun. Much more fun than the fun pages on RW. HK will get you lots ofpageviews ;-)--Th. Bernhard (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

you agree.... but dont understand how wikis or websites in general work. i see. --il'Dictator Mikal 12:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Heh.P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote that, I didn't know much on copyright. Then I learned and fixed my error. The Heidelberg Kid (talk)

You still don't know much about copyright. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Good to see you editing here again, I thought you had disappeared. Tielec01 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

... joy. --il'DictatorMikal 04:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

HeidelbergLittleGoat

sterile^{no new information}13:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)