User talk:Lumenos/Archive2

Copyright

Moved content of this section to archive 1, now I will "quote" and comment on it here.

"[The material in this section] is based on a copy of [the talk page you are probably reading,] at RationalWiki. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify [this section] 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." -- (Suggested by Human and seconded by Bob. Bracketed text by Lumenos.)

Is this satisfactory? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, sure, except your second bracketed insertion doesn't make much sense. Whatever. The main is to 1. mention the copyright (CC BY SA), link to the source, and link to the CC BY SA pages. As long as all three are done properly, you're fine. ħuman 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what I'm "proposing" (it is kinda snarky). Here is an example http://lumeniki.referata.com/w/index.php?title=User:Lumenos/Debate_Map:Measuring_consensus&oldid=4227. ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. ħuman 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

When I am quoting people at RationalWiki

Do you want me to preface it with that quote there? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't want you to quote us at all. Forking discussion onto a dozen different pages on two wikis makes them impossible to follow. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How am I to know how many people you represent? ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're just quoting something one person wrote, put it in quote marks and reference it to when it was added (the difflink). If it's more than one person, use the cc by sa copyright blurb above in the footnote. And 89.x.x.x's opinion is probably quite widely held. You may want to take a poll... ħuman 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A prestigious LJ member, Ace McWicked, seems to like the idea [1]. User:Π also thought it might make me a pariah. Perhaps if I weren't so critical and focus on trying to be descriptive. ~ The Undecider (an anarcho-librarian) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)^{— Unsigned, by: Lumenos / talk / contribs}

Community standards

There is a copy in the community standards arXve. By the way, the rule for archives is DO NOT EDIT. Just to be clear. - π 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was a copy there. The section title was left or brought back out, when I edited it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

That Lumenos be treated as a Concern troll. (S)He apparently has our benefit at heart but is totally unable to express her/himself in a manner which is understandable to the majority. Her/His use of multiple pages in her/his user (& user:talk) spaces is at least confusing and at worst disruptive of any coherent discourse. Her/His unfamiliarity with RW rules on interfering with "talk" comments and apparent disdain for our community standards is distracting and contrary to RW's modus operandi. 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a concern troll someone who is only pretending to care about your benefit or something? I'm not so much worried about "your benefit", but rather the philosophical truth and the mission of this wiki. Could you be a concern troll, without knowing it?

I don't recall having any problem with the "Community Standards" page, since it was altered to remove the prohibition against linking to white racist sites. What "community standards" do you think that I disdain?

What talk comment did I "interfere with"?

Where can I see your rules on talk comments, and who supports these? Do you realize this is exactly the problem I was addressing? That the Community Standards page does not reflect many of the the community standards.

~ Lumenos (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Newcomers#What_can_I_do_with_my_user_page.3F 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it. I don't know how I have broken any of those rules exactly. If anything I corrected the indentation from when Human moved my comment. ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He is a troll, he likes to argue with people. Stop feeding him. He will continue to annoy you for a while, then he'll copy over stuff to his wiki and continue to "argue" with you there (liberal last wordism?), and you'll be rid of him. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

When I did what? Lumenos is a clueless drifter, and I think Susan might be correct. ħuman 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, when we were editing on the community standards talk page, I created a section and you deleted this section and indented the comment. Do you remember that? ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff please. - π 11:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for it, but I'm not sure someone hasn't removed it from my view. How many users here are able to do this? Apparently Nx has similar powers to edit the database, and he acts like he hates me after the WikiIndex incident. ~ Lumenos (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you are paranoid. If you remove an edit it leaves a place card saying here is a deleted edit. - π 12:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know you and I don't know how this wiki is run. When you wrote that you read the entire archive of the community standards talk page and made it sound like this is to be expected (I don't know if you're serious) but that seems kinda obsessed with this wiki. Would it be horribly scandalous if the powers that be completely removed something from edit histories? I often wonder if some of your "trolls" are people like Nx (who says he is a troll on his user page now). Does he get the concern troll treatment, whatever that is? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised a) that it happened - Human gets away with a lot; b) that you can't find it - you've made so many damn stupid edits on so many damn stupid pages. Nx =/= troll: he's done some fucking really useful things here - name one that you've done. 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we ask CP how "productive" RW editors have been to them? I wasn't being critical of Nx for being a "troll", I thought more that he was ridiculing the crabbs. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He thinks Human altered one of his edits and then used show/hide to hide it from him. - π 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

er ... Bollocks! 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He thinks I think Human altered one of his edits and then used show/hide to hide it from him. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. I was referring to you in the third person, so you should change the references to yourself to be in the first. Is English your first language? - π 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. You made sense of it. I start to get sloppy when we are not arguing about something that seemed important and this page is so cluttered, I don't know who would want to read it. Maybe for others it is much more interesting than the debate map. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I for one would be pissed if someone completely removed an edit for no good reason. You have been here discussing policy for over a week now, you must be gaining some insight into how it is run. We aim for as few rules and regulations as possible and have an open editing ethos. We also leave talkpages as untampered as possible, nut recently we have had a trolling problem and it is now generally excepted that you may remove a comment if it is excessively vulgar and attacking a person. - π 13:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many of the edits that have been deleted. You know what goes on, I think. It must be difficult when a wiki is founded by "trolls", then they want to get rid of the people who clutter up talk pages with their stupid opinions. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the comments which are attacking another editor or actual deletions? - π 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Marcus or whoever posted that thing on my talk page and it was reverted. It wasn't attacking me. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not been discussing anything. He's been rambling away incomprehensibly. 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The bit that annoys me is I explained the "rules" really succinctly at the top of this page and he is still confused. He seems to be under the impression that there is some big set of rules being hidden from him, rather than following the above 4 points through to their conclusion. - π 13:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the few posts here that I felt had much merit. I replied here (maybe an hour ago): User_talk:Lumenos/Debate_Map:Measuring_consensus#Π's rules ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a variant of the Gish gallop? 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if you suggest a good name I'll create a fun article on it, or take it to RationalWikiWiki. - π 12:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lumenos labefactation. - π 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lumenous latrant. - π 12:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Distraction:

picking on a minor point and thus distracting from the main thrust. 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It has to be an alliteration. - π 12:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Concern troll"

Approximate quote of Susan G "A proposal: That Lumenos be treated as a Concern troll. (S)He apparently has our benefit at heart but is totally unable to express her/himself in a manner which is understandable to the majority. Her/His use of multiple pages in her/his user (& user:talk) spaces is at least confusing and at worst disruptive of any coherent discourse. Her/His unfamiliarity with RW rules on interfering with "talk" comments and apparent disdain for our community standards is distracting and contrary to RW's modus operandi. 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)"

What is your current proposal SusanG? How should "concern trolls" be treated if they are not "useful" like Nx? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lumenous, just relax. Enjoy RationalWiki. Go to WIGO CP or the Saloon bar. Engage in normal conversation with people, without creating a "debate map" of the conversation. Find a clog post and put it on clogosphere. Find an article on a topic you are interested in and contribute to it. You are rubbing people the wrong way with these meta-discussions. Leave them for a while. - π 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Take pi's advice, Lummy. ħuman 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See this is what I am talking about, you are moving the conversation about again, it is very frustrating for someone trying to talk with you. Use "Wikipedia conventions" like everyone else. - π 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean quoting? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's ever complained at Wikipedia. When I was talking about a "Wikipedia convention" I meant that comments are to only be on talk pages. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the fuck do you have to create a new section instead of replying in the one directly above this one? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to if it is so horribly offensive, threatening, or "disorganized". I didn't find any rule against quoting people and I wanted to focus on just one statement. Perhaps I am more inclined to ignore edits that I might be tempted to call "crabbish" just because they don't do much for me. Now I guess my talk page has become a sort of sympathetic debate crap of the RationalWiki mafia. So be it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that I look it over, I've already replied to just about everything that I could understand. At the end I wasn't sure if they are intentionally eeearrruum "committing" the Gish gallop, or if they think I am. But now I have somebody to talk to and so this is normal, not crazy talking to myself stuff using weird words most the world would think was a little weird. (:sic:) (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Starting afresh

Look I don't dislike you and I don't mind you editing here. What annoys me is you are proposing changes to the wiki without knowing how it is run. There is a fair bit of history to this place, a lot of it goes back to the days when most of the founding editors were on Conservapedia. As a result when they founded this wiki they tried to correct for some of the problems they encountered there. Some of their initial ideas are treated as sacrosanct. A lot of the "rules" are built on precedents. My advice to you is learn the landscape better before diving into the big stuff. I don't think I made a comment on site policy for the first six months I was here. You don't have to wait that long, but proposing stuff when you don't know the every day workings is going to rub people the wrong way. If you have a good editing record to your name people are more willing to listen to your ideas and opinions. - π 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your history goes back further than that. Conservapedia is an offshoot of Wikipedia. So many RationalWikians went into WikiIndex and demanded that they follow Wikipedian conventions, like commenting only on talk pages. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're a definite nutter, Lumenos. If you don't like it here why not EFF OFF? 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want him to eff off, then STOP FEEDING THE TROLL 89.132.239.149 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I do what I like. I like trying to talk sense into you, and learning from you (or others, haven't actually learned anything from you yet). I have a proposal. Why don't we call everyone who calls someone a "troll" and then argues with them, crabs! Are you with me IP address? Couldn't we add a little to this mythology? It is always the same boring word. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)x2 Commenting only on talkpages? That is what they are for, it is not a Wikipedia convention it is a wiki convention since the late 90s. That is why there are two pages; the article - for the article - and the talk - for the talk. That is how the software is built. - π 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is probably a MediaWiki convention, but lets face it, wikis are often just a bunch of comments with no sources. Wouldn't you think it might improve CP if certain people could comment in the articles? ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it would be a mess. The article is the thing you show people to read, the talkpage is where it is discussed. If you want an article with comments on it, that is called a blog. - π 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bletch! Blogs are for wanks who need to approve every comment and keep them in a neatly disorganized list.

You need more than two pages, if you are going to make those revamps work. People need a place to "vent garbage". ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is no more an offshoot of Wikipedia than cottage cheese is an offshoot of Stilton.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[Eearrrm now pii was trying to start fresh there]

Go here to see why Lumenos should be considered a selfidiotroll (a neologism of Lumenos SusanG to describe a self obsessed troll who is also an idiot) 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is friendliness? You are the first person to acknowledge Lumenos' manifesto. For someone who was pretending to want to ignore me, you are a bit confusing. I think Nx was the first new lumenati to employ the lumenist convention of creating neologisms for jeezes. May have been Human. Human is so proficient in it now days, he never names me or my ideas the same thing twice; constantly updating jeezes as the perception changes. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But he wasn't having much success (with the fresh start) was he: you just ramble on incomprehensibly. 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am unfortunately unable to determine if you actually don't think I am making sense. Were it not that so many other people say so. I don't know if all you are being serious or not. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do what you want*. I'm done with you. You are a complete idiot.

*EXCEPTION: DON'T alter any pages in RationalWiki namespace without discussing (and receiving general approval) on the appropriate talk page first. This includes creating any sub-pages in any namespace except your own User & User:talk. 15:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually think telling someone they are an idiot a million times was going to solve something? You fancy you are not a troll yourself? ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What I learned from SusanG

"This material is based on a copy of this page you are reading 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." -- Human (secunded by Bob)

The quotes here may be misleading, this is actually a paraphrase and it should not say "document" it should say "section". ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it back, I did learn something from SusanG. This was copied from above:

"I don't know you and I don't know how this wiki is run. When you wrote that you read the entire archive of the community standards talk page and made it sound like this is to be expected (I don't know if you're serious) but that seems kinda obsessed with this wiki. Would it be horribly scandalous if the powers that be completely removed something from edit histories? I often wonder if some of your "trolls" are people like Nx (who says he is a troll on his user page now). Does he get the concern troll treatment, whatever that is? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised a) that it happened - Human gets away with a lot; b) that you can't find it - you've made so many damn stupid edits on so many damn stupid pages. Nx =/= troll: he's done some fucking really useful things here - name one that you've done. 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast"

You seem to think I'm being critical of Nx when I say that. I thought maybe he meant that there was a lot of hypocrisy here surrounding the calling of the people "trolls". If you called yourself a troll, would you think that would be a term of derision? ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry so sloppy, but at least this interesting comment is not only buried in an uninteresting section. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)