User talk:Lumenos/Archive4

Rights

While I thank you for going to such lengths to protect my rights, it's regrettably not needed. You see, my possession of a largely defensive weapon of gun means that any and all attempts to infringe on my rights will be safely deterred by the threat of deadly force. Also, my 25 ranks in Profession(Engineering) provide a +5 synergy bonus to machismo, so really, we're good; you can stop now. The Emperor

(I had posted this suggesting that the bylaws of the RationalWiki Foundation include some protections to prevent 2 Trustees from overriding democratic/mob rule of RationalWiki.)

I don't really see your point. I make perhaps hopeless plea to prevent corruption.

You want to talk about guns and stuff? It is not difficult to kill civilians (who have guns) it is usually difficult to get away with it. Having a group of people who could investigate, publicize, or avenge your murder, might be a better deterrent. ~ Lumenos 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So like journalists? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If journalists like you so much, that would satisfy criteria two, but the important thing is that the potential murderers believe that the journalists will inform someone who will get them. Maybe "informants" would be a better term, but that sounds like informants to state law enforcement, I suppose it could also be gang/mafia members or something.

It occurs to me that I assumed you were talking about your "right" to life, but I guess gun might protect other "rights". I'm not sure how gun could protect your "right" to the largest audience you deserve. That is more the issue here IMHPerception. ~ Lumenos 03:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bah the largely defensive weapon of gun can insure all f my rights both on wiki and off, such is the power and insight provided by it. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude! I hope you are like totally joeking cause you are starting to freak me out Man! ~ Lunemouse 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can go to motionless in my bed to gun in hand lights on in under four seconds. Luckily the average liberal response time is over 5.2 seconds. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also the possibility of using the guns of government law enforcement. ~ Lunemowse 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page not your property

[Moved earlier stuff to archive ~ Lunemowse 15:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) ]

One thing I'm trying to do (here)

I wanted a wiki where diverse groups (aSK/Conservapedia, Metapedia, WikiSynergy, RationalWiki/Liberapedia [(and other "mainstream" scientificish wikis like Liberapedia and Wikipedia)]) could collaborate to form multiview debate maps. ~ Lumenos talk) 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [I put bracketed text in this comment following complaint by Human and then Bondurant. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 17:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)]

I was going to add Encyclopedia Dramatica to the list of diverse wikis, whose editors I would like to allow to collaborate with, at Lumeniki. I'm told I should do this with comments instead of editing my comment. Is this an acceptable method of updating information? ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your methodology is either far too clever or (more likely) complete bullshit to actually work in any known universe. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the record show that a Jack Hughes has suggested that my methodology is so clever in fact that it won't "work", for some mysterious purpose. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is nobody actually wants you to do it (here).--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Aaah but Brotha Bob, where's ya proof? ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think his proof is him, Nx, Human, Weaseloid, P-Foster, Goonie and me telling you to stop rearranging the fucking pages. - π 03:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

At Lumeniki you wrote, "You sound as though you are accusing Human of tampering with talk pages, something as you can see we take seriously." I don't see that you take that very seriously. You (Pi) might take the idea of tampering with talk page edit history, "seriously" but you're more than willing to post in numerous places that I have tampered with history. Here you claim all these people have implied that I have rearranged "the pages". I don't recall anyone ever posting a diff; preferring rather to write your own history in the memory of any sheeple who might be reading. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 09:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you run RW and LP together with a slash mark? Do you think they are similar in some way? ħuman 01:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

They are ideologically similar (compared with those others). You got your racists, your fundies, your scientificish (that's RW and LP), woo, and ED is the wiki for the "troll's" (crass critical comedians and cyberstalkers). ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 09:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I see your point. Is LP really "lumenciencish" though? Last i checked they were just a weak parody of CP. And I feel lumenoiled by being glued to them with some cheap mastic. ħuman 11:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit that was half the idea. You say this while I hang from your communEntity's jeezes crucifixes. Oh well. I strikeout for you... Oh dear, now it say RationalWikiaUberapedia. It must be Lorg's will, I cannot change now. So sorry. Why you so racist? ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 11:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed your strikeout lumenttempt, feel free to change it to what you lumenean. A simple lumenomma would probably unsoil my lumendies. Anyway, thanks for eir lumeneply. ħuman 11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, you do wong thing and they blame Wong! I never put something in other man's mouth. You measure justice with mobruler. My crime: buckteeth smile so ugly. I can't make new talk page... I know. I take out and put new name. Don't tell! ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC) [We get caught by spies! I put back and update comment. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 00:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)]

Two things I tried/trying to do here

At 01:20, on 29 June 2010 (UTC) P-Foster asked, "What exactly are you trying to do here?"

• Suggest that consensus be measured, if we were going to claim that there was it. Oooh soooo controversial. Stopped bothering trying to correct all the myths generated about rewriting history, trolling, etc. ~ Lumenos 07:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Make page to actually maybe do something about unscientific laws forbidding consensual sexual activities. It soooooooo wooonnnggggg! ~ Lumenos 07:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit break 1

Π, what conventions am I not following? ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are rearranging comments, creating new level 2 headers in the middle of older ones, placing down block quotes by other in these new sections, you are changing your comments after other have replied, you are forking discussion by stating new sections on other pages.

But this is really tiring. How about we agree that you can use what ever convention you like on your talkpage, so long as you don't; a) remove comments without archiving, b) edit the words of others' comments (titles and indents are alright), c) you follow the normal convention on other talkpages outside your userspace (just go with the flow don't format), d) you don't "organise" comments not on your user talk, this includes copying comments from one talkpage to discuss them on another, and e) you stop trying to fork conversations to other pages, including your own wiki. In return nobody should post on Lumenos' talkpage unless it is helpful advice and people should stop harassing him here and on the admin abuse page. - π 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so one thing is understood. Human changed a heading from the way it originally was on this page. I was changing it back to the original (as I had created the section). P-Forester seems to either agree with that convention or s/he trusts Human. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "P-Forester" when it should be "P-Foster". ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could we do this on my Lumeniki talk page? Cause that would be so awesome. ~ Lumenos 07:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple

• a thread is anything under a level 2 heading (==whatever==)
• if it gets long, level 3 heading can be used to split it (===EZ edit break=== etc.), preferably somewhere where it makes sense (e.g. not between a question and an answer). But you should just leave this to someone more experienced.
• until you understand how talk pages work (probably never), do not move any discussions at all. I've set up Pibot on your talk page so it will be archived automatically. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Don't replace your comments with something completely different because that will just make the discussion impossible to follow after people have replied to you. If you must change something, add an indented comment under it or use strikeouts. Better yet: Slow down. You don't need to inform us every 5 minutes that you've now decided to move a discussion to a slightly different location, and then 2 minutes later that you have indeed carried out the move. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what BON said. - π 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BON means "bunch of numbers" at RationalWiki. A reference to editors who sign with IP addresses. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"You don't need to inform us every 5 minutes that you've now decided to move a discussion to a slightly different location, and then 2 minutes later that you have indeed carried out the move. "

I not inform you, I make history edit note. You spy me! ~ Lumenos 08:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Don't replace your comments with something completely different because that will just make the discussion impossible to follow after people have replied to you."

Do you have an example of me ever doing that? ~ Lumenos 08:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about here? Bondurant (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right in one case just yesterday. Pie said we can have my rules on just this page and Human changed my comment just before, then said I could fix it. Can I do that? Put strikeouts in others' comments then tell them they can fix if it is not right? No. But you are right, I made about three wongs in a row there. I think I fixed it all better, now. It was wong temporarily, but now we fix and make better than ever! This is wiki way. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Like writing a script of a debate

I like make page somewhere where we have debate then we change what we wrote when we have better perspective, like we are collaborating on writing a dialectic script like Plato's Republic (but instead is MediaWiki "outline"). I never do that here, and the so-called debate map is not really a debate map (the one at RationalWiki is even less updated than the one at Lumeniki). If we leave talk page as it was, it has misleading "lies". Someone may say, this is what we say, when it was what we said, not way we say now. Knowledge is always improving. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You might enjoy perusing meatballwiki (google it), a really old wiki-based commentary on web 2.0 based ideas that doesn't have talk pages, where they "refactor" which is like your debate map idea except they do it well. ħuman 07:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually found a page there that is exactly what I describe here; writing a script of a debate. The topics I am interested in, our covered in this wiki. I will just take conversations and do it myself at a lumenikilu. ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You might be looking for my talk page.

Lumeneader for lumenection

I am here, oh Lumenaster. Where are the Lumenaps to be Lumenated? Lumenoid (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope everybody likes you as much as me. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be lumenighted with me! Thanks! Lumenoid (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they prefer your humor to my mix of serious and ridicule. I'm considering moving most of the content of Lumeniki to another location, and letting them "run Lumeniki" with some limitations. There was some evidence that someone may have gotten into my email account. I haven't attempted securing it yet. They might be able to "steal" my "identity". Your votes or input would be appreciated at Lumeniki. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What's a lumenection? Does it require pr0n or blue pills? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Community standards at lumeniki

I have started a page for the discussion of the community standards at Lumenos' own wiki here. In view of the time and effort which Lumenos has put into helping out the RW Community Standards, I think it only fair that RW should help him with his.--Hitman (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at you wiki Lumenos I think that your troll article is a thing of great wonder. Might I ask if it is a good representation of how you think pages should look?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong idea of how articles (or people) should be. I think articles should be interesting and have sources/signatures where necessary. Lumeniki is not RationalWiki, nor would I attempt to make it that way (except perhaps by making a suggestion now and then, if that is not too controversial). When articles are young, in a small fledgling wiki, it may help stimulate activity, to have less regulations on how everything must be. Currently, you can come "spam" lumeniki with your username, etc. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is your wiki all about?

What are you all about? I've just had a look through your site and I'm none the wiser, just rather confused. What the fuck is that shit? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many theories, none of which are very satisfying, and some of which are frankly terrifying. Wisest stupid Hoover! 14:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless a clear answer in ten words or less and which did not include any words beginning "lum" could be ... well .. illuminating.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all you who gave it a try, at least. It genuinely saddens me. I try so hard to communicate as clearly as possible but I often get these vague criticisms or questions. There are a few exceptions: David Cary (WikiIndex founder) did participate in mainspace editing on a philosophy article, Gooniepunk helped me explain one of the backyard solar steam power articles, and some editor's were helping to develop Community Standards and write the "Troll" article. (What means "troll"?) [ backup link for troll article ]. That is basically how lumenikilus are supposed to work. ~ Lumenos 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (Updated 16:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

However, you have at least realized that you don't understand what I wrote. People often claim to understand what I have wrote, when it seemed to me that they did not. But they don't often give me enough feedback for me to know how I appear. Great thanks to the editors at RationalWikiWiki for providing the best example of this I have ever seen. This is like the first time anybody has bothered trying to explain something I said, in their own words. These two anonymous editors are either playing dumb/deceptive or they completely misunderstood what I actually meant. ~ Lumenos 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two descriptions of Lumeniki that seem very clear to me. One is on the mainpage and the other is at WikiIndex. Do you have a question about something on those pages or anywhere else? ~ Lumenos 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The clearest one is from RWW: " it mostly consists of him talking to himself in his own invented language with his own invented words" -- Nx / talk 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nx! You came to my treehouse! <huggles> How's my second favorite RatWikian of all time? ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you spamming links to other websites in your sig? You have a talk page here, if we want to communicate with you, we will use that. -- Nx / talk 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aww, you lost my article. Please tell me you still have the picture of Dude. MARCVS ANTONIVS (who though he was Phantom Hoover at the time) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

???? Lumeniki1ref is rather slow, if that is what you mean. It is working at the moment however. I restored a backup to http://editthis.info/lumeniki/Main_Page but this doesn't haz the Dude Man yet. It came from the Wikipedia article on dude. ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you and Phantom Hoover are a pair of matching socks? So you were the stranger who first blocked me here at RW. :-) ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't/don't always edit this talk page, either because I get too many edit conflicts or because Ace McWicked complained that I was flooding Recent Changes and Gooniepunk seemed to "agree". It kinda reminds me of WikiIndex, you know how I tend to talk to the "trolls" and apparently this is bothersome to those who prefer we unite together to excommunicate them? Maybe you would know if there is a way to prevent edits from showing up in Recent Changes, but I would still like to post links to other places that people may "talk" to me, if that is what your editors wish to do. ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lumenprobably lumenwhy lumenyou lumenare lumenmisunderstood lumenis lumenyour lumencuriously lumenobscure lumenway lumenof lumenexpressing lumenyourself. Lumenthe lumenmoment lumenyou lumenmake lumensense lumenpeople lumenmight lumentake lumennotice. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The backyard solar steam power articles, don't contain neologisms involving the "lu" prefix. Many of the philosophy articles do, because other words are too ambiguous to be useful. I prefer that you realize you don't understand how I define a term, rather than assuming I am using a definition you have preconceived.

Apparently, my philosophy is not comprehensible to the majority of people. You can't grasp it with a superficial skim and I refuse to oversimplify, particularly when discussing very controversial matters that some people might wish to kill/etc over. If someone really wants to understand me, they will ask and I will try to make something understandable to them. If they want a superficial oversimplification, to act like they understand and disagree, I suppose they can come up with their own definitions for all my neologisms. For example, I prefer to use the term kibibyte instead of "kilobyte". Because the term "kibibyte" is less well known, people realize they don't (necessarily) know what it means. You know that engineers who built some rather expensive spacecraft did not bother to label certain units they were using, leading to the presumption that they were using metric instead of English units? Something bad happened as a result. These ambiguities I avoid by making neologisms with only one definition and linking to this precise definition in a wiki article.

Ambiguity is a thousand times worse in philosophy because everything is abstraction. (See the Ethical ambiguity hypothesis.) ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 17:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is funny how your attempts to make your writing absolutely unambiguous backfire so badly. -- Nx / talk 06:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it becomes more ambiguous? I see no evidence of this. If readers want to imagine it means something different than I intended, that is out of my hands. I did all I could to communicate and maybe they just have an aesthetic aversion to it. I've been called unique, weird, strange. That is better than being misunderstood.

BTW I sometimes read lumeniki and see a lot of bad writing and mistakes. But there is no point in updating it unless someone is interested in it. If they are not even interested enough to ask about a specific issue or page, it is not worth my effort. Lumenos (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's time for us to be friends

After all the things I did for SusanG - wrote a poem for her, sang a song for her, asked how she feels, she simply labeled me as a troll. I'm never going to make my marriage proposal for this crazy, wicked, ungrateful witch.

I only argued with you because I felt that I had to protect SusanG, but now there's no need for that. We can be friends. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

At this time we have positions available for sidekick, ally, and disciple. Please follow me around and post your agreements or criticisms and I may do the same for/to you.

I liked your "evil joke", but I marveled instead of laughing. As to your interest in the ladies; I think you should go for the cheerleader if this is legal in your jurisdiction. Ey is the only female who I have seen to express an interest in this sorta thing, and you have similar personalities. ~ Lumenos 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the cheerleader 18+? I'd totally hit that. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)