User talk:Leotardo/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Leotardo!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Can't believe you haven't been welcomed yet! Always up to Ace to do these things. We are now best friends. Acei9 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dollhouse! Let's have a three-way. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys - thanks! I'm an avid reader, and will likely remain mostly a lurker (and supporter of all yous guyses wit that makes Conservapedia palatable). --Leotardo (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome! rational ghey (send a message) 01:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! --Leotardo (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not a beautiful butterfly. Do it like everyone else does please and stop indenting your posts with *'s. It's irritating. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realized that what is accepted as a standard format for readability on other wikis is disdained around here since, well, nobody told me until now. --Leotardo (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. What's an example of a wiki that encourages misuse of bullet points to indent talkpage comments? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I would say that there is a "wiki that encourages" use of bullet points, as much as it's not an un-standard way to respond, particularly if there are multiple responses to one comment that start to bleed together. I suppose if I named a Wiki you'd say "show me the diffs!" and then I'd say, "but I don't really care about this" because even after I was contrite you still really really care about the asterik vs. colon thing, huh? --Leotardo (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's actually a lot simpler than all that. The practice is so unusual that only 1 other person who edited on this wiki did it. When I see someone using *'s my first thought is, oh it's that asshole I blocked for 2 years for threatening to sue the site owner and who told me "I will see you removed from the Bar. You can take that to the bank." So my response is more visceral that rational I guess. I don't want to be reminded of a walking time-sink like TK when I see someone post here. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Leotardo and welcome to RW. Wave.gif I hope you have a fun time here. But I'd just like to point out that our Newcomer's guide does recommend the use of colons. But, as Nutty says, the stars probably just remind us of somebody who pushes a lot of buttons for some people. Welcome again.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I have trouble watching boxing results because "TKO" reminds me of the same thing, so I can relate. No more stars. --Leotardo (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sysopery[edit]

Congratulations on being mostly harmless, Leotardo! You are now a sysop! Or "janitor", as I like to call them.

Now report for duty in the broom closet! You've got work to do! Here's your bucket, mop, and instruction manual! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As "I" like to call them? RA, the phrase predated you by years. Get over yourself. And Leotardo, congrats on your demotion. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I know. But I hadn't seen any mention of sysops as "janitors" since I came back, so I figured it had gone out of fashion. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean I have to write the David Frum article? --Leotardo (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Damn right it does! Now do it! Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm blocked and confused. Dazed, too. --Leotardo (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Click here... then click the Unblock link. You'll soon get the hang of it. Or suffer eternal torment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jinx drag queen[edit]

You are making me uncomfortable with this. Do you know he is one? Are you accusing him of being one to insult him? I don't think it's an insult. Are you trying to provoke him in some way? Please help me understand so I can get past this. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a stupid nickname, but I also think it sounds feminine, which is ironic that a 37 year old Christian male would choose it. As a gay guy, I don't find the status of "drag queen" or "effeminate" or "cross-dresser" to be an insult, and in my art I've worked with some of the most internationally famous. I think Jinx think it's an insult, though, and so I say it to bug him (even if it's only in my imagination, I giggle that it never dawned on the guy that 'Jinx McHue' is such a drag name). But it seems to be bugging you, and it's easy to stop so I will. --Leotardo (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I respect where you're coming from entirely. But it's a bit like calling someone "gay" or "retard", whether to insult them or get a rise out of them. Shaky ground. Just call him a moron or misinformed or something, I dunno. It's not really a big deal since I seem to be the only one who cares, but I think you see where I'm coming from? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I do see where you're coming from and I'm of course speaking from a lot of personal history in feeling entitlement to use such humor, but that personal history is not obvious to anyone else so it's bound to be misread again. Thanks for the polite note about an angle I wasn't considering. --Leotardo (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The only male mannequin (torso and head only) I have was given to me many years ago by Vanilla. Vanilla had trouble walking due to abuse at the hands or feet of some assholes. You are indeed entitled to use the phrase as you see fit, but there is that other side, which you mention, of it not being clear to all. Take care and I hope I didn't come across as a clumsy censor over this issue. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

David Frum[edit]

Nice work on adding those headers! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Leotardo (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort[edit]

Do you know what I mean by that? It makes articles get sorted by, say, "Kristol, William" rather than the article title in cats and your new template. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about defaultsort. --Leotardo (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Wanna help me fix the political pundits who aren't done yet? You can start at A and I will start at Z? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I did all the work, but forgot to add the template to some of them. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting tired of your approach[edit]

Rolling back any time I edit after one of your edits? You're getting tiresome, my friend. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think you are exactly? Are you the Queen of RationalWiki, and if you say something then it goes? Why don't you spell it out for me? Because I'm a little sick of you thinking you have the final cut on everything I create, particularly when you're removing information because you don't like the wording or make retarded decisions like having junky lists as the start of an article. So why don't you tell me how what you say goes around here, and I'd appreciate some back-up from your cohorts about how I'm doin' it wrong. --Leotardo (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
When you create/edit something that needs a bit of proofreading or rearrangement and I am the next person on the scene, guess what I do? Please discuss these endless reversions on the talkpages so we can get the best results. Your endless reversion of my edits following yours is prima-donna like and you also seem to enjoy insulting me. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
haha - project much? You assume you are the default here, and the articles should stay in the state you have decided. I've let a lot of your edits to my work stand, I disagree with both of these. So until you tell me how or why you are the one who gets to decide the default, can't you at least go get a friend to revert instead of edit war like a prima donna? --Leotardo (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Leave your projection out of it. I am not the default, I just happened to be the next person to edit after you. When reverted - which I only did in one place - or when you disagree with a change, start a talk page discussion, like I did in both cases. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to start a discussion over every edit of yours I disagree with, and as long as you make snarky rude edit summaries expect the same respect back. --Leotardo (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
3rd party comment: Leotardo, you need to write in complete sentences and not tell other people to learn "how to write a wiki". That sentence didnt even make sense. rational ghey (message) 03:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Because on a wiki, if someone doesn't like how something is worded they don't just remove it and instruct someone else to do it, they fix it. The idea behind this is that we are all here for a common purpose, and I don't personally have anything invested in making sure people know that Chisholm was why the 11th Amendment was adopted. It serves our readers. What I object to is the idea that it's my job to write it the way someone else wants it written, or we'll leave out the relevant information. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I don't have a problem with the wording. --Leotardo (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's confusing. Human and I have not always gotten along in the past but I have to agree with her this time. It was hard to read. And instead of insisting on being right, you could try to explain what you mean, rather than state the obvious rational ghey (message) 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
RG, I wasn't bothered about how Human wanted the wording done differently, I was bothered for the abject removal of a relevant sentence that Human felt wasn't worded properly, but was worded like everything else on the page:
  • 13th Amendment: "Abolishes slavery."
  • 16th Amendment: "Created the income tax."
  • 18th Amendment: "Prohibited the sale of alcohol. Infamous for giving Al Capone something to do. "
None of these are complete sentences, so I was attempting to keep with the style of the page instead of re-write the page. I don't know why this was controversial when I did it, and I don't care anymore. But my addition to 11th Amendment of "Happened because founding fathers on the Supreme Court got the Constitution wrong in Chisholm v. Georgia." doesn't stick out on the page at all if you read the rest what's written under the Amendments. Meh, whatever. --Leotardo (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Leo, if you think Human is following you around to check on your edits, that ain't it. She does a lot of (mostly) useful wikignoming & is often first on the scene on new articles created or new edits to mainspace articles (by anybody). So if you get an edit reverted or corrected or reworded, it's often Human just because it is, not because she's out to get you. She can be arrogant & irritable, but she mostly has pretty good judgement about content issues. That said, her opinion is individually no more important than yours or anybody else's, as Trent has said. So if you disagree with one of her changes, you need to talk it out, not just revert. If you start a (reasonable) discussion on the article's talk page, you'll probably get a response from Human, & chances are that other users might weigh in with an opinion too. But nobody else will want to wade into an ugly revert war. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Weaseloid, I actually don't think poorly of Human outside of this specific context. It's important to realize we all would be marching in the same marches and fighting the same fights, together. But for whatever reason, we clearly have a personality conflict that has burned me out. All of my content interactions with human were of me following a style that existed before and getting reverted as if I was somehow messing up the style (see comment above to RG). The same thing happened on my TemplatePundit. Human: 'Navigational templates should not be a random grouping of article' (I didn't think mine was); Me: 'But TemplateSex is a random grouping of articles and you created it. Human: 'You're right but but still wrong in this instance.
This keeps repeating itself, and there are more examples on Trent's talk page, where it's not just Human coming along and wikignoming, but engaging me in battles when there is no anti-RationalWiki issue or intent at stake. I like this site - I like you guys. I'm just not enjoying the personality conflict and would prefer to sit it out, since there is no end in sight and I'm only one month old. It's not lost on me that my reactions to all that I described could, of course, be better or more reserved but I'm human just like Human :-) Sometimes I react. Anyway, thanks for reaching out - I'm off to dinner. --Leotardo (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like part of the problem is that there've been multiple content disputes between just you & Human with no other editors taking a side, & in those situations it's difficult to step back & differentiate between the personality clash & the real content issue. & Especially when it's something like a template that you've created, it's easy to take criticism personally. If you get stuck in that situation again, it might be worth posting in the Saloon Bar to ask for others' opinions (as an open question like "can anyone else give any thoughts on this issue?", not "Human's being a bitch, please help"). I don't recommend doing that a lot, as it's not really what SB is for, but if you get stuck in a one-on-one content dispute, it might be a way forward. Things like navigation templates usually tend to follow established patterns - they don't all match, but there are certain ways of setting them up (like generating random lists from a category) which the community (mostly) tend to prefer, so it's worth listening to more experienced editors on issues like this. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to add that, the more you hurl insults at someone (in this case Human), the less people are likely to get involved and, especially, that doing so in this case made you look just as in the wrong, if not potentially more so, than Human. I'm not taking Human's side, but you need to be aware that it is my personal observation that you are just as guilty as he in this situation. Plus, hurling insults at each other will cause the rest of the community to stray away from helping out for the same reasons that an outsider wouldn't usually get involved in a drunken bar fight. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 01:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd also just like to say that RW does like to become way too personal, compared to say wikipedia. Sure, we have more of a sense of humor, but opposite, I think RW can be too bitter too. Don't take it personal. At least check out CP:what is going on? rational ghey (message) 02:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

by the way[edit]

are you a lady gaga fan? (from userpage) rational ghey (message) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation[edit]

the first thing I thought when I saw the 500,000 figure was "No. Fucking. Way." I wanted it to be wrong. Then I read the source and did some simple division. 16 out of 10,000 (500,000 people) sounds about right. 4 out of 100,000 (12,000 people) does not. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

heh - thanks. You were right, I was wrong. I left with my tail tucked between my legs as shutting up was the only recourse ;-) --Leotardo (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder[edit]

You are bang on the money with that call, mate. I am not a big fan of armchair psychology, but the diagnoses given on that WP article describes the Assfly to a T:

  • Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  • Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
  • Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
  • Rarely acknowledges mistakes and/or imperfections
  • Requires excessive admiration
  • Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
  • Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
  • Lacks empathy: is unwilling or unable to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
  • Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
  • Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitude.

DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I also normally dislike armchair psychology, but someone close is diagnosed NPD, and Andy would be an easy call. I have no doubt a psychologist would make that diagnosis if they looked at the documented way he acts, thinks and talks to people. Juxtaposed against what must have been a strange childhood? It's really striking. --Leotardo (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Blanking your talk page is kindof frowned on. Can you start keeping an archive like other users do? Thanks. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Kinda frowned on"? more like "Against the rules." AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you point me to the rule, and also tell me why an officious site like Wikipedia doesn't care, but an "anything goes" site of sarcasm and humor has a big issue with not archiving your talk page? It doesn't really add up. --Leotardo (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Rule, at WP the talk page is yours, here it is ours. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The archive is the fossil record, and I don't have any plans to start creating subpages. I see no point. --Leotardo (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just setup Pi bot to do it for you and you don't have to think about it and it makes everyone happy. There are mountains worth dieing on, but standing on some sort of principle about talk page archives seems a bit much to me. But its your battle. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, true, but this is neither a mountain nor a molehill to me: I just don't care one way or the other. If someone wants to set up a bot to do it, I also don't care. Is there some sort of history that has made this so contentious that I have three people asking me to archive a page I can't imagine anyone would be interested in? Clearly there has to be something behind this, because you all take it pretty seriously. --Leotardo (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
*cough* MC *cough* Blue Talk 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
MC, TK, CP, and three years of institutional momentum. At root though it comes down to the basic idea that discussions are community property no matter where they occur and individual editors don't have editorial control over them. But yes, you have hit on a formerly and cyclical "hot button issue" that has spurred mini HCM in the past. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's see, this already got a WIGO, now we need an article. Hmmm. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 18:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Clearly from the responses here you can see that this is something we take seriously. I'll set up pibot for you. -- Nx / talk 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, clearly. And I'm glad that resolves this serious issue for you all. I guess it's better than someone having to click "Fossil record". --Leotardo (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Because we have few rules, and the one rule we do have (this one and only rule) is all we have. Without this rule, we are no longer a community, but an anarchy! Punky Your mental puke relief 18:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't keep a talk page archive at Wikipedia, and I don't want to keep one here. I will have to live with the frowning, particularly since there was nothing important worth preserving outside of talk about Lady Gaga and a spat I had with Human. --Leotardo (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

TKOW[edit]

Just to be clear: although I know many people here correspond with Terry Koeckritz off-wiki, I don't. I thought I should mention this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think you were one since you raised the issue. Not that corresponding with TK would automatically denigrate someone in my eyes (I actually am associated with people of questionable character off-wiki) but I know when to draw the line. Hopefully those RWers who do correspond with TK know where to draw theirs, and it certainly issn't over the issue we both agree on and, IMHO, trounced any argument against (but I'm obviously self-interested in that assessment ;-) If TK emailed me privately with his critiques and thoughts, I would thoroughly engage them privately and not spill the guts to anyone, even if he outed himself to me. I would deal with him as a pathetic, sad old gay living the life of shame when there is not need to anymore. --Leotardo (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem very eager to jump on the "TK is homosexual" bandwagon, based on one quite possibly forged bit of "evidence". Since you also think I am a pathetic sad old guy, though, and that my politics are outdated to before you were born, I yield to your superior attitude. Also, I saw no "trouncing", just a coupla kids getting pwned by a seriously skilled debater and not even realizing it. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Come on, seriously? I wasn't jumping on the "TK is homosexual" bandwagon, I was jumping on the "discussing whether TK is homosexual is okay here" bandwagon. Look, "those who only know their own generation always remain a child" - that's inscribed over the library of my alma mater. There is no doubt that your politically correct views are antiquated, and rejected by the youngs. Sorry it bothers you that you're an old libtard. Maybe update your philosophy? Then you'd be considered and old, cool progressive dude. Win-win! --Leotardo (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere among all that namecalling am I supposed to find something logical or intelligent to respond to? Your ageist ad hominem stupidity does not win you any friends, my friend. You're just being an arrogant, childish asshole. As far as the bandwagon, I think you were wrong in your "points" about why discussing it is ok or not. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Human, you're smarter than this. Trent was able to defend his views on this without resorting to childish diversions, why can't you? You don't say anything of substance above that I could actually respond to. Please, I respect you too much for what you have accomplished, and I don't mean that facetiously. RationWiki? Brilliant - obviously I think so, I'm here. So, get over the offense you take that I call you an "old 1980's libtarded freak whose views are no longer relevant to the 21st Century" and tell me how I am wrong in substantive terms. Explain why your philosophy is relevant to a guy like me in 2011. Do you know? gay reference inserted here --Leotardo (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
And you can't tell me that if you actually clicked on that link, it wasn't awesome. --Leotardo (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

public figures[edit]

Lets take up the topic again in a few days time when it can be divorced from the immediate controversy and explored as an interesting question in and of itself. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and thank you for making the suggestion. I think I'm spent on the immediate controversy (and won't raise an objection if it's binned). I will do some research in the meantime in my old law books and some of the other books I have. --Leotardo (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not touching the damn thing again with a 10 foot internet tube. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Do you use it here? I'd like to share a citation with you. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nutty - I do: leotardorationalwiki@gmail.com. Look forward to it. --Leotardo (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hiya. I sent you an email from my Nutty account. Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting citation. I'll read it over more fully tonight and respond. --Leotardo (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I can send you some caselaw from relevant states. Email me if you're interested. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll e-mail you when I'm home, but I don't think it addresses the real issue. --Leotardo (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)