User talk:Nullahnung/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 January 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

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

No more verification

Since you seem mostly harmless, I've put you in the Autoconfirmed user group - you shouldn't be seeing any more captchas during normal use of the wiki.

An unpleasant side effect is that your demotion to janitor sysop will be probably late, as by the time you build the necessary (minimal) reputation, people will have nothing reminding them that you are a new user.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Captchas are supposed to ward off bots, so I'm glad to not have to go through it. This will make it easier for me whenever I read something and can't keep my thoughts to myself. Nullahnung (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not insane

Go forth and do, er, stuff - David Gerard (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears the responsibility to clean the place has been gently nudged in my general direction!

*insert He-Man quote* Nullahnung (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Redname

I added a space to your personal page, to get rid of the red. Hope you don't mind. if you do, it can be undone! Welcome! I'd say something grand and wise, but the best i have is "Why does killing a zombee, kill him, if he's already dead?"Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, never mind. it didn't save. I though you could save space characters. so wrong was I! Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll think of something pleasing to put there eventually, I hope! Nullahnung (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I de-redded it. Use comment for blank spaces: <!--Comment--> Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

action at a distance

Could you put the text on the talk page - 'fingers in a twist'-itis. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok Nullahnung (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (Would add 'slow-computer-itis' to the causes). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. How are you? Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 09:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm alright, thanks for asking. Nullahnung (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Right then

So you seem to have an interest in the science articles here as well, so I felt like asking your opinion specifically on what I mentioned at the Saloon Bar. My thought so far is that most of our science woo articles (at least those that involve more complex concepts) suffer from that issue. Either no background is presented, making the articles entirely incomprehensible to those without a background in the topic, or a great deal of page space is used to explain this concepts, and this is sometimes duplicated across multiple articles. I'm not sure what the best solution is. My thoughts so far are:

1. Give each article requiring some background its own section with a basic overview of the subject (I don't like this idea).
2. Include a "See also" link to a reputable source on the background information on each article.
3. Halfway in between the above ideas, so to speak, create a separate article with a quick overview on the requisite background material for subjects referenced by multiple articles, and use "see also" links for any concepts that are not so widely referenced.

Thoughts? - GrantC (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the 3rd way you listed sounds alright, and I think this is also what we've been using largely on RW. You'd have an overview article for quantum physics, then one for nuclear energy, etc. I'm not the most knowledgeable in site structure, though, maybe ZooGuard can help you out better with that.

If you can list specific examples on problematic articles in relation to insufficient explanation like you said, I could check that out and get a better idea of what you're talking about. Nullahnung (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well in my wandering about of the quantum articles via the DLP, I've noticed that there are quite a few articles on important concepts in quantum mechanics (quantum collapse, quantum entanglement, etc.), which are often fairly far off-mission. On the flip side, there exist quite a few articles on quantum woo that barely touch on any of these concepts (when perhaps they should), and don't even link to them at all. On the issue of nuclear fusion, if you take a look at cold fusion vs. fusion woo, you may notice the opposite problem. The latter contains a section referencing legitimate fusion, while the former goes all over the place without ever really talking about what real fusion actually is. Now, the cold fusion article actually has a link to the WP article on nuclear fusion, which is great. That said, there still exists a discrepancy in formatting between that article and the fusion woo article. - GrantC (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess my original comment was also a bit incoherent, but my issue was largely regarding the inconsistency. - GrantC (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the important things is to link articles to each other so that they all get more views and so that people can visit the appropriate article for the appropriate information to fill in the gaps while they're reading. I think that would alleviate some of the problems you talk about (though I suspect that to completely alleviate, one would have to do a bit of rewriting too and reorganizing of info across multiple articles, in any case, interlinking would be a good place to start).

The formatting discrepancy you mentioned is somewhat unsightly and I don't know what to do about it yet. I'll think about it, but no promises. This kind of thing the site veterans would be better at handling, I feel. Nullahnung (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the interlinking. I'm going to start doing that shortly. Also, please don't feel obliged to spend any time on this, as I was more or less just interested in your opinion (since you're one of the few people who have voiced one so far). In terms of a more substantial rewrite and a correction of the discrepancy, I'm probably going to ask a few other people and then just go with option #3 above. A part of that will involve paring down a significant number of our more technical science articles, but I think in terms of this wiki's mission, it would go a long way to improving readability and making the science woo articles more concise and understandable. - GrantC (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2013

DOOM

Some doom metal for you :) Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it probably looks like I was vandalising your talk page, but I wasn't. It was just that my phone fucked up and copied the entire thing again when I was trying to put the links up. However, there should be no damage, I don't think. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Right on! I'll check it out. Nullahnung (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not bad for peaceful listening while doing other stuff, have to say. Nullahnung (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's also pretty good for helping you sleep, and, when I have time, I like to just turn it up as loud as I can, sit down, and just let the atmosphere take over. It is quite a majestic feeling. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Singer

Hi mate, we had a conversation about Singer a while ago and I finally got around to dragging out his books and taking a cursory glance at what his position is (I've been flying more than most birds over the last month). It turns out our article is mostly correct and I was mostly wrong. So no need to change the article. Tielec01 (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was actually thinking about this conversation yesterday! Glad you got around to checking it. Nullahnung (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive pages

You aren't supposed to edit archive pages. If you wish to talk about video games, you can start a new topic at the Bar--"Shut up, Brx." 05:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I think I'm going to stay in the shame corner for a while. Nullahnung (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I expect nothing more from a human *spits*--"Shut up, Brx." 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsig

Thanks for catching that unsig; I completely missed it! I'll have to pay more attention to that next time... - GrantC (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel that? That's the cloud of shame that will haunt you for all time because of this. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I can already feel the weight of it on my shoulders. Woe is me! :( - GrantC (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more worried about the other thing you most probably did on that page, which is to confuse the hell out of a poor Italian-native-speaking law student by throwing around non-intuitive specialist terms like "commute" and "operator". ;) Nullahnung (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well unfortunately that's about as layman as it gets for quantum mechanics, and that's kind of what I was going for there. If there's one thing I've found out about physics, it's that you have to be prepared to do a bit of your own research if you want to make heads or tails of any of it. :P - GrantC (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Was more a reminder

When I can look at twitter on something other my phone anyway. Zero (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense. Lots of people edit from their phones nowadays... Nullahnung (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And now you have the citation. Yay. Zero (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay

Okay, so, as you know, I'm leaving soon. Anyway, I'd just like to say, thanks for being so awesome. In case I ever want to come back, and since I trust really trust you, I'm going to email you my password, so that I can get it off you when I want to log back in. Oh, and good catch on the virus article, by the way! Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 11:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, normally I just store my passwords somewhere safe, filed and sorted and such. You could even e-mail it to yourself, then delete the e-mail later when you reclaim your password. So thanks for the trust, but there are less round-about ways to keep such things.

Farewell, wherever you fare! Nullahnung (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I already sent the email, so, ummm… yeah… by the way, I'm a sysop now. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 11:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you set a default e-mail in your user settings and have that e-mail confirmed, MediaWiki will e-mail you your password if you request it to do so at the log-in point. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to do that instead, I could go ahead and delete the e-mail you sent me. Nullahnung (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be good thanks. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 21:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, deleted. Nullahnung (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A while back...

...we had a user named "Tisane" who managed to turn the place into "debating child sexual abuse wiki." Nobody wants to see that happen again. Just because somebody is wrong on the internet, doesn't mean you have to argue with them. I'd like to think a smart person like you has better things to do than to engage with someone who is probably just a lowly troll. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I was thinking that if it looked like turning into a longer argument I would just slap on it and leave. Nullahnung (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things.

Firstly, I'm back. Secondly, I nominated you for the board election thingy, as you seem genuinely dedicated to the site, would take it seriously, and are just overall a good, trustable kinda guy. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

While I agree, he is unfortunately ineligible to run, as his account was not registered on or before January 15th, 2013. - Grant (Talk) 14:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So do I just take it off, or…? Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did that. If there's another procedure followed in events of this nature, feel free to tell me- or just change it. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! But yeah, better take that off before someone notices... Nullahnung (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

How talk pages work

I haven't really used talk pages, so I don't know what the etiquette is, but are you supposed to reply to someone on your talk page, or the other guy's talk page?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You are supposed to try and keep the conversation in one place if you can. So your reply would be best on your own talk page if the conversation was started there! Nullahnung (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is a pretty good approximation of the guy I told you about (particularly the parts about names).--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Indi- Indeed... Nullahnung (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't count the number of times he's told me the equivalents of "[person] was born in Romania, so he's Romanian," "Tom Cruise, originally [insert Romanian name here]," and "Uma [or whatever] is an Indian name."--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ableism

Hi there, you undid my edits which were to make a post less ableist. Saying "brain-dead" and "brain lesioned" are pejorative when the person being described is actually not suffering from brain damage. If you want to discuss this, let's. dildz^zzz 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: I research people with temporal lobe lesions, and specifically with semantic dementia and herpes simplex virus encephalitis. dildz^zzz 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that "mind-dead" defeats the whole point of the pejorative attack that we made on creationists, since it takes away the malicious punch that "brain-dead" has. If you consider "brain-dead" to be unacceptably ableist (which I actually understand), then we can get rid of the whole attack altogether, since it's an all-or-nothing situation. We might replace it with something less snarky, or of a different type of snark that is less malicious. Nullahnung (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think any references to brain damage should be to actual brain damage and not as abuse. So it would be awesome if you could, delete it and/or rewrite that bit to be from the SPOV without being ableist. dildz^zzz 14:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article might be better off without it, so I deleted it. Nullahnung (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I like you. dildz^zzz 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your name

What does it mean? Also, how's the guitar going? Have you had a chance to practice at all recently? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Be judged by your suicidal desire} 11:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It means Noidea in german.

Haven't practiced anything musical lately, unfortunately. Been spending much less time listening to music as well. What the hell happened to me? I don't know, surely this will change after I'm done with my MSc... Nullahnung (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting study before music? I am disappoint. Lol, just kidding, what are you getting your thingy in? Oh, and as a side note- in which country do you live? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Prying open my third eye} 12:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Environmental Engineering/Civil Engineering, London, UK, currently Nullahnung (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Stallman Parrots

Fair enough A (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my contributions

Was there any reason for deleting the contributions I made to the article Creep Shaming?Forces (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

When there are changes that significantly change the tone of an article it is common practice to revert the changes for now and ask the editor to discuss the change on the article's talk page first. So that's what I did. Nullahnung (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did you ask the editor to discuss the change? Forces (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I did it in my edit summary, if you look at the revision history of said article you can see it. I'm sorry for just assuming that you'd see it and not contacting you in a more direct fashion. Nullahnung (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The entry significantly changes the tone of the article, therefore it is incumbent on the person introducing it to justify it. 2. The material in question is written at about a 4-th grade level and does not fit the general style of the wiki. 3. The reasoning in the edit is questionable, at best. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the content on the article's talk page rather than on mine, thanks (not talking specifically to TeenageWasteland, just in general). Nullahnung (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the edit summary, I'm somewhat new to wiki editing so I didn't know where to look. I'd prefer you to contact me in a more direct fashion in future if that's okay. Thanks. I will start a new topic on the talk page Forces (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Challenge time!

Nullah, I have a challenge for you. So far, this month, I have edited the wiki 279 times, giving me an average of about 17 edits per day. Anyway, the challenge- I challenge you to get a higher position than me on RW:AU. May the editor with the least real-word responsibilities win! THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 10:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't accept! I have my exams starting at the end of this month and need to study more than be here! Nullahnung (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe next month! THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 23:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Nullah

Do you have Skype or something? I can't video chat, but it'd be great to be able to, like, actually talk in real time, you know? So yeah. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really use Skype, I'm afraid. I'll look into it maybe after my exams end next month. Nullahnung (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do me a favor

Instead of reverting the vandalism to my talk page, just let it go. Because they're just gonna keep doing it over and over. My talk page might even be on their watchlist. Let's just wait a while, there's not much point wasting our time edit warring with those idiots for the time being. This way, I won't constantly be getting the yellow-orange boxes--"Shut up, Brx." 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your first WIGO

Good job! \m/ESSIAH 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nullahnung (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Genetics help

From the racial realism talk page, I noticed you've got some grasp of the genetics/race connection. I don't, but I took on genetics of race. I'd love it if you could take a look and correct/change whatever I handled poorly. MarmotHead (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed in the topic by any means, I just have a better reading comprehension of academic references than that persistent racial realist. So I can't promise I'll be of much help, but I'll take a look. Nullahnung (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we're probably at a similar level. Still, you may be able to notice something. Thanks! MarmotHead (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Touching base

Hey Nullahnung, I just want to make sure that I haven't done anything to offend you. I'm a little concerned that I decided to edit 3 pages, today, on a lark and all three were reverted by you. It might have just been coincidence -- you might simply have had all three pages on your watch list or you might have been following up on all changes occurring to this wiki during that time -- but I feel a little . . . stalked. I hope we are good but let me know if we have any issues we need to discuss. --Bertrc (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I just happen to look at Recent Changes a lot when I'm on and I check out edits that show up there, so I just so happened to come across your edits as they were all made within hours of each other. It's nothing personal, I think it's just that your writing style as well as your humour and idea of the relevant subjects clash with my own, so I objected to your edits. Nullahnung (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:-D Cool. --Bertrc (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Maturity is over rated!

You're so mature to these trolls. I respect that! But it's so hard to do. :-) One tin soldier (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I still believe that peace and love are the answers to everything ever, being the hopeless child that I am, so I try to make my opponents see things the way I do and try to see what they say, if they've got anything interesting to say. I've been called naive and exercising futility before, but I came to this Wiki to waste my time in the vague hope of being constructive and learning things, and damnit, that's what I'm going to do! Nullahnung (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix up

My apologies for confusing you with Nolidor; I'll be more careful with names. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Glad we could clear that up. Nullahnung (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

At yes all women

Hey, I'm sorry if I seemed a little ill-disposed there. I respect your edits, and the effort you put into editing difficult topics, and I hope I was in line --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry if it seemed like I had a problem with you or anything you said, I don't! I also respect the way you edit. Nullahnung (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't at all, I just saw that you'd sectioned it off and I just wanted to make sure that you didn't feel deflated or anything by our discussion! Thank you, I think we have a really good group of editors here --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the proof-reading

Much appreciated. ·Femilisk^SJ 11:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the only thing I'm decent at with the limited time I'm trying to spend online. ;) Nullahnung (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearing up something from ages ago

On the creep shaming page, you may recall I said that I'd never been called a creep. This has been nagging me for a while, so I'm just gonna clear this up now. I have been called a creep very many times- just not in that context (as in, it wasn't related to romance/sex, just standard high-school cuntishness). Anyway, not sure what the relevance of that is, or whether this is really doing anything, but whatever. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Those who are not with me are against me- and I crush anyone who stands against me} 13:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I forgot all about it tbh, it was quite long ago. Nullahnung (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"…help create a climate more conducive to mutual understanding"

I'd just like to let you know that I really fucking respect what you're trying to do, and what you try to do, time and time again (that is, create actual discussion and debate, not just shouting matches). It must require a tremendous amount of patience. Anyway, props. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^Cermeneserm! 13:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Nullahnung (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandal

109.58.148.235 is some generic troll doing them generic troll edits. King Skeleton (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who or what you're talking about, but ok, I'll keep that in mind. Nullahnung (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I mean this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.58.148.235

Admin list said you were a sysop, I figured I should report it to someone? King Skeleton (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Most people here are sysops, nothing special, really. There is no need to report these things, as they usually get noticed fairly quickly. Nullahnung (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)