User talk:Lumenos/Archive1

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Lumenos! 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 LUMENOS! I finally beat Ace in greetering someone. SJ ^Debaser 23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but my greetings are way beeter, so welcome Lumenos! Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to my letter arrangements. Lumenos (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sysopship

You are now one of oyr legion. The rules are simple:

1. Don't block people that aren't sysops, even if they are vandalising, use the vandal break.
2. Don't misuse, hide/show, only use it in the most extreme cases of privacy invasion, posting phone number etc.
3. Don't protect or delete a page without discussing it on the talk page first.
4. Talk pages, including this one, are community property. Don't edit other uses comments or remove them without archiving (you have a box for this now).

Please read RationalWiki:Sysop guide and RationalWiki:Community standards for further information. - π 01:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooow for me? Why thank you! I guess you read my wiki and realized I'm the one foretold by your prophets of old. I'd like to thank all those who helped make this possible. Coach Forrester, you taught me to never give up. Gosh... let me think, my dog Dingleberries who was always there when I needed someone to wipe my fingers on... Lumenos (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dingleberries are for everyone who lacks a stick to wipe with in the woods. Indoor plumbing utterly changed humanity. ħuman 08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiping with sticks. An excellent idea.^{— Unsigned, by: Lumenos / talk / contribs}

Lumenist naming conventions

PI saith, "He seems to name everything after himself "

I figure it more honest, when one is talking out their arse, to name the BS after the arse it proceeded from. Keeps everything organized. [Actually, I came up with the term "lumenism" first, and "Lumenos" and all the other lumen* stuff is "named after" lumenism, although I regard lumenism to be more serious and respectable than say lumenosity or even lumism, the "failure" of the debate craps may suggest it is all the same vanity. Lumenos (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)] This is the lumenist method: You create your personal neologisms so that you don't have to refer to philosophies (say existentialism, for example) that you never really fully understand, because it has all become some sort of game where the players try to define the philosophy as it would serve to reflect their need for such a word. I just make up a new word. If I find there is a popular name for it later, I can call it that later. Lumenos (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is similar to the method of naming gods that explain mysterious phenomena; naming them after the phenomena that they explain. These are the "gods of the gaps" or "gogs" for short. Why? Well because there could be more than one. Why should we assume there is only one god who does a bunch of different things, when there could be more than one... or maybe aliens, got to consider aliens if we are to teach the controversy (Intelligent Design). So they won't let us teach the controversy in schools, that doesn't mean we can't do it in churches! Church is so much more open to critical thinking, it's really the only place where the controversy can really be taught properly. I'm for teaching the controversy. Lumenos (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Get over yourself and relax already. ħuman 08:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some area of the cerebral lobe gets tortured with boredom during healthy yoga-like exercising, for example. As to my "narcissism", this isn't likely to change until I find some Sasquatch coneheads, who think exactly like me, at which point I will be able to say I'm into my community.^{— Unsigned, by: Lumenos / talk / contribs}

You broke my Wiki!

How dare you insert snark into article on MY Wiki? I have half a mind to vandal bin and/or permaban you for doing so! Lol. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 06:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I try not to break hearts at least, but it is so hard when you're this beautiful. =(|) Lumenos (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Touché! The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 03:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope I didn't break the BioPod forum (forever). I kinda had them on the hotseat again, but it is only because they have such a possibly very valuable product. I explain the situation here.

I'm posting updates on the situation here in case anyone is interested. Lumenos (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(After one has made friends with Nietzche, it is difficult to make new ones :(|). Lumenos (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"How I would have done that". Yes, i forgot the second half. First fix link, second make redirect. Ideally, though, no links to redirects survive, all should be fixed, since double redirects fail. ħuman 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would you need to fix the link if you are going to make a redirect? Would the Nietzsche article be likely to be moved? I think not. Lumenos (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You never know. ħuman 20:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As discussed

As discussed, you've got Holyroller rights at RWW. As was not discussed, I also gave you janitor rights under the condition you quit calling me sir ;) As was also not discussed, I will give you block rights over there if you keep an eye on the troll there for me so I can finally retire from being the de-facto leader of that place. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 08:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Chief. No I won't call you Chief either. : ) I can do my best if I happen to see any warty midgets. I'd be likely to try negotiating. I don't know that blocking does anything more than make them harder to track unless they have open proxies blocked there. Do they? Lumenos (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I guess the position is "police officer" wherein we get to lock pages also. Hmmm now this might be useful when they trying replacing me truth proofs with damn lies. I'ma be right over to see if I can't set that trlol right. Lumenos (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking sanctuary and refuge and liberty on this talk page - edit MAY NOT BE REVERTED WITHOUT CONSENT OF TALK PAGE PROPRIETER

Hi, as you can see that Gerard wanker blocks me every time I appear, so my voice is of course squashed. Polls, consensus, etc. are all nonsense, all part of a broader tyranny. In short, rules and regulations are quite simply un-necessary on an internet project which supposedly espouses liberal and rational values. Obvious vandalism should be reverted, and the vandal blocked, but above all else, the community should resist moves to deepen rules and regulations as they only serve to feed the ego's and wank banks of wikipedian losers with no social skills (Such as David Gerard) 86.45.197.91 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we must continue our discussion here, as the Brownshirts are hard at work. 86.40.111.143 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever they will allow Sir. Not here to rock the boat. Lumenos (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Trall suspect

Apparently it can be reverted. If it was not altered, I got the message. It doesn't seem right to me either but I know nothing of the cruelties you have undoubtedly inflicted upon the gentle WashionalWiki folk. Please attempt to state your grievance BRIEFLY in this location (where my appointed duty is to make you behave righteously). If that does not work (or you have more to say) you are welcome to write out of their jurisdiction. Lumenos (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the record show, a certain "MarcusCicero" has registered at Lumeniki, and posted an embarrassingly brief statement in requested location. If you might be allowed to post with that username here, we can verify that this is either the infamous one emself, or an impostor magician. Lumenos (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the record show a RW user:Nutty Roux has reopened this [ lumenati ] portal. Lumenos (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I get that English isn't your first language, but don't you make any effort at all to be coherent? The above reads like a flavorless word salad. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roux. Since Human (Huw Powell) suggested that many things I have written are incomprehensible at WikiIndex, DavidCary claimed the same perception, and now you. I posted a link there if you want a sort of definition of lumenati (I suspect this might be even more disappointing). If there's something else you want to know about me I guess you could ask. I may be lacking in some normal social skills or cognitive abilities. Lumenos (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh you did ask me something. Yes I have created an entire wiki designed to explain my philosophies and whatnot. Apparently it's a big failure. Lumenos (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I will explain my motivations: I deleted this section because I thought maybe MC's comments are being deleted because he did something very bad like posting private information that was illegally obtained (or eeammm googled on the "name"). Therefore I deleted this section and the link to that page in Lumeniki (since I was the only one who posted here, although I suppose this is equivalent to deleting a post by MC since it would make his comments more difficult to find, but since MC or the anon poster was apparently being permitted to post on my talk page, I figured it didn't matter.) I was a bit worried MC would start posting the private info all over Lumeniki and everybody here will hate me, but it seems that he's only been deleted for insults or unpopular criticism. Since this bureaucrat has reopened the link, I suppose the administration here is not too worried about MC posting private information in Lumeniki. If he does, please blame bureaucrat because I have no idea what evil MC is constantly being deleted for. ~ That blind moron (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Grammar corrections to my comments (such as this), are appreciated. ~ That blind moron (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you leave comments to yourself? At least this one is not in third person. - π 00:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You obviously and quickly found the comment, as I had intended. It was not left to myself. ~ That blind moron (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Only because I was wondering what peculiar thing you were up to now. - π 00:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Find me interesting in a way, do you? I like anyone who does. I will try to be less obscure, if I'm not just writing to myself.

Folks may come along and read this. I guess it is mostly to Human, Weaseloid, and Phantom Hoover since the latter two have edited my comments. I hate to water down the discussion on my Community Standards subpage but I guess I will post it there, where Human did, if anyone cares.

~ That blind moron (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a funny

...at Lumeniki: (Move log); 01:00 . . Lumenos ... moved RationalWiki trlols to RationalWiki Blemishers (I could find no trloling, only blemishing the warm harmony of the hive mind.) <snark snark>

Copyright

Hi. I see that you are copying some material from here to your wiki and occasionally using the justification that our creative commons licence allows you to do this.

You will be aware that creative commons puts two conditions (1.) that the source of the material be credited and (2.) that the website using the material also publishes it under creative commons. It is also suggested that you link to the CC licence. I am not sure that you are consistently respecting these conditions.

Nevertheless I see that your wiki's somewhat complex copyright statement seems to allow for individual pages to have a different copyright statement, and I see you attempting to follow it in at least one instance, but I can't see this being used consistently. If I have misunderstood no doubt you will clarity.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Bob:

I probably haven't always followed the "Lumeniki contract" as far as putting the articles with different licenses in their own categories. I wasn't sure if anyone would care, but I will make an effort to make it more clear in the future and update the copied text that is there now.

1) The source of the material is credited by the links, no? I think I did this consistently.

2) The material is published under the CC license, but I'm not sure how well I stated that in other articles, or how I am legally required to.

Is the article you linked to in an illegal or offensive state? I can't tell. If you want to write something out I will probably copy and paste it into any content copied from RationalWiki, just to be civil.

~ That nutter who'se always re-editting their comments (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no legal expert, but licences are an interest of mine. I'm not sure your contract is compatible with our general CC licensed content. Asking editors to relinquish copyright causes issues. I've seen similar issues with the proliferation of software licences, and to be honest you really need a good reason to create a bespoke contract. It's your wiki and your business, but there are many good reasons why authors and coders should try to avoid the legal side of things. LHA is a classic example of this. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean not compatible? The copied content is only under your license. Hmmm it may become complicated if anyone continues discussion, thus creating a derivative work, if they post that work on a new page. I don't think I want mixed licensed content, although some pages joke about that like this one. ~ That nutter who'se always re-editting their comments (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we not relinquishing most of our copyrights when posting somewhere with a CC license? ~ That nutter who'se always re-editting their comments (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the term "bespoke contract". I am attempting to avoid the legal side by having a contract where the copyright of all edits are transferred to me, if they are not "without restriction" ("public domain"). (I'm not sure what "public domain" means in all jurisdictions.) Do you have an alternative to suggest? ~ That nutter who'se always re-editting their comments (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As to your last point, you can't do either with our CC work. It has to stay CC by SA, you can't claim copyright or release it to the public domain. ħuman 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread. As far as my second to last point: Do you have the same copyrights after you release your work under CC? I don't see how you could because then wouldn't you have the right to have your work removed from a wiki that you edited?

On my last paragraph: I wasn't suggesting claiming copyright or releasing to public domain anything that you posted on RationalWiki. Any copied text remains under the RationalWiki copyright. Lumenos (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK... as far as the struck out bit, I do have a reply for that. One does not relinquish copyright when posting on a CC wiki, one merely grants a fairly generous license for one's contributions to be altered to make derivative works. As I understand it, anyway. That's one of the reasons for the "history" feature. ħuman 23:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong term I guess. We don't relinquish all our copyright rights when we release work under CC, we only relinquish some of the rights we would have maintained if we had published, for example, on a blog. Right? Lumenos

Actually it doesn't matter where or how it is published, it is a specific license that permits derivative works without requiring permission or payment. A blog could be CC by SA, as could, say, a piece of music. ħuman 00:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

[I may have put a comment in this location that has disappeared ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)] [I will attempt re-writing the comment. A blog could be licensed CC, but I was assuming it would not be. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)]

So, basically, what you should do is put this at the top of each page copied from here:

"This material is based on a copy of this page at RationalWiki. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version. A complete copy of the license can be read at Creative Commons Legal Code."

And link "this page" to where you copied it from, ideally a permalink or difflink of the version you copied. ħuman 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be my interpretation as well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is all disorganized (probably my fault mostly) but I'm going to archive this and copy out parts to comment on. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)