User talk:Krej/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 15 December 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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

Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Olleh! Sophie^Wilder 18:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Opsys

Yeah, baby. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--KreJ (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't do it! it will corrupt you! you will stop being able to leave! you will find yourself at 3 in the morning, editing just one last thing. ;-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or just balkanizing edit! — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Name change

It seems you might want to change your sig to link to your new user page, least you be followed around by a certain bot. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 01:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Essays, articles, and more!

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Ty has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie. Ewwwwwww. Cockroaches ate half of it.

Nobody^{don't bother} 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also appreciate the hard work you've been doing, Krej. You write good articles and make good edits to existing ones. Your essay is impressive, too. Thank you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Awww, thanks, guys. :) You can keep the cookie.--Krej^talk 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to dampen your spirits, but can you try not to create so many one-line articles? If you've only got a couple of sentences to say about something, try & look for an existing article you can fit it into rather than creating a new page for it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Brasov

Not worth attempting to engage Brasov in a discussion. He is a wandal and a certifiable loon. Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

QuantumMAN

This is a new contender for quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Stupider than baraminology. YOU HURT MY BRAAANE - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Why the sudden interest? :) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just stumbled upon the article. It was very fun to read, by the way! :D--Krej^talk 17:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey.

So I don't seem to interact with you much. You do some good work here. please continue to do so. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Krej^talk 01:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Retired

What's up? There you were cracking on as usual, then suddenly you retire. Sophie^Wilder 18:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I should like to point out that although your "right for the wrong reasons" article was pushed for deletion, your larger body of work here at RationalWiki has been well received. You are very much the valuable contributor, adding lots of decent mainspace content and generating little drama or conflict.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, it has nothing to do with the deleted article, I've just run out of things to write about. Also, I've been spending way too much time edting RW, so I'm going to go edit something else.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Whew. I've gotten used to seeing a lot of activity from you. Without that, things wouldn't seem the same. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Bloggy blog blog

Noticed that you're dropping comments on the RW blog (or at least someone under your name). If you stay consistent with the email address you use, or start a Wordpress account, you won't trigger the "first comment needs approved" filter any more. I've just spotted one or two of your comments in the pending queue, but David and I both have limited access at the moment. ^bomination 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I didn't know that. (By the way, didn't I approve my comments?)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mission/delete tag etiquette

It's considered a good thing to offer your reasoning when tagging stuff. Not giving a reason leaves everyone having to guess what you meant, and looks a bit rude. Sophie^Wilder 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't know that.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Now write it out a hundred times. :) Sophie^Wilder 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.Sorry. Didn't know that.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 17:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

While you're at it, there's also Charlie Brooker, and Neil Gaiman, who have even less to do with anything regarding pseudoscience. Woodgod (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete it

Just mention that you realize that. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Misread as a WP link. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the first time you have removed a link without paying attention... (Sorry for the intrusion, Krej.)--ZooGuard (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't mind. Now get off my lawn. ;)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That Bulgarian folk song

Do you still want a translation? (I didn't feel too well around the end of last year).--ZooGuard (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to, if you don't feel like it. ;)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A story

Marx was with a young colleague at the train station. Observing the passengers getting into the first-class car, the young man said: "when the revolution comes, those bourgeois pigs will have to ride in third class with the rest of us." Marx shook his head, and replied: "You have understood nothing of my work. When the revolution comes, we will all ride in the first class car." And that's why Hobsbawm's estate is totally not worth mentioning. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cool story bro" would have been better...--ZooGuard (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I'll have to practice honing my "meme instinct". :D--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nationalistic obsession with famous people

"In any ethnicity, there will be nationalists who are absolutely obsessed with the ancestry of famous people. If a famous guy is [insert ethnicity here], then that means more glory for the Fatherland!"

Often this is true even for nations they're not even from!

Just the other day I was talking to a Bulgarian who was set on convincing me that science would be nothing today if it weren't for the Russians. His argument was that a Russian came up with the periodic table of elements, the apparently crucial event in the history of science and the first example of revolutionary scientific achievement since Newton... which is hilarious because if you look at the history of the periodic table it's more complicated than "a Russian came up with it".

When I pointed out that there are other natural sciences besides chemistry he either wouldn't hear of it or just try to establish that the Russians are underappreciated in every field. Why would he do this as a Bulgarian? Because Bulgarians and Russians share cultural bonds, the strongest of which is the language? I don't know. (Of course he also kept bringing up the names of famous or not-so-famous Bulgarian achievers when we talked about other disciplines.)

I'm just trying to establish that many people have an obsession with achievements of their local wishy-washy ethnic/cultural group, an obsession that is transcending national boundaries yet still very much nationalistic in nature.

I myself have been tempted to obsess over famous achievers of various European countries and China, just because I have an EU passport and Chinese ancestry. There is a certain comfort in "taking pride in the achievements of countries one feels one belongs to", though I do realise that it's all wishy-washy bullshit. Nullahnung (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's because Bulgarians and Russians are both (Cyrillic-using) speakers of Slavic languages. Like E. A. Freeman said,

“”These races which, in a strictly physiological point of view, have no existence at all, have a real existence from the more practical point of view of history and politics. The Bulgarian calls to the Russian for help, and the Russian answers to his call for help, on the ground of their being alike members of the one Slavonic race.

Maybe it's also because of some other historical factors I'm not aware of. Maybe they consider themselves related or something, so that even if Mendeleev wasn't quite Bulgarian (which would be the best case scenario), he's Russian, which is the second-best choice. I know this Romanian dude (X) who obsesses over every celebrity's family. If the famous guy has even a vaguely Romanian-sounding name, X takes it as proof he's Romanian (the possibility that unrelated names could be coincidentally similar or that the same name could be multi-ethnic is too far-fetched for him). Now, X has some German ancestry, so if the evidence for the celebrity having Romanian ancestry is too scarce even by X's standards, but the famous guy has a German in his family, X latches onto that as the next-best thing. Funny thing, nationalism.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 20:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Aye, funny thing it is sometimes. I could draw parallels to people being from the same school and then taking pride in "I was in the same school as this famous person! Yes, our school produces winners". Myself, I believe in the strength of individuals, but it is a common trait to latch on to any connection one can find to increase one's own sense of self-worth. Nullahnung (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[sic]

We can leave that out of Eternal Productions: 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge if it matters to you. That WP user page was not meant to be an authoritative source, but a pointer at previous discussion. For me, it comes down to aesthetics and conciseness. When I see someone write "is comprised of" when "consists of" works perfectly well, that often goes along with other signs of the writer being a pompous blowhard. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If it were just a matter of changing the text of a RW article, I wouldn't care. But adding [sic] to something that, though ostenibly non-standard, is widely used, ([1]) seems a bit much.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DHMO

That was a bit of a mess, my friend. ħuman 02:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I don't think that Ayurveda or Unani are pseudoscience, no scientist ever describe them as so.. They were formed before the science and they have helped the formation of surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, etc. They cannot be pseudoscience. Contractor (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if they "formed before the science", then that must mean they are proto-science rather than actual science.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 08:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's the correct term. Shall we use it instead? We can say "proto-science in the guise of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and pseudoscienctific such as Homeopathy". Contractor (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Protochronism

Hi, why did you delete all the old revisions of that page? That's not allowable due to copyright issues. Is there some issue with something in the history? Revisions can be selectively deleted in the case of things like libelous material. --Ymir (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that I wrote the article, I fail to see what copyright issues there could be.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Other people have edited it. Also just in general, what's the point? --Ymir (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Again; I was wondering the same. Why? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I already bugged you once, could I maybe ask you to consolidate your edits more? It's a little annoying to see recent changes filled with dozens of tiny edits to the same article. Do you know you can preview changes before saving the edit? --Ymir (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to do that.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo, sorry

sorry for the accidental revert, my finger slipped onto the middle mouse button and accidentally clicked (these things can happen sometimes, I swear). - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no problem.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)