User talk:Nutty Roux/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 18 January 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <1>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

hey nutty

You should totally sysop me again so you can get the satisfaction of desysopping me. Also, lol--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannot edit own talk page

You should not do that unless the user is abusing the ability to edit their talk page instead of using it to protest their block. -- Nx / talk 07:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I only do it for spambots and the Springlyn spammer. If I did it for someone else it was a mistake. 12:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I also do it for terrible racist usernames. 14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of this user who apparently doesn't have any contribs -- but I think it's a bad idea to disable it regardless of who the user is, if they abuse the ability to edit their talk page, take it away, since that's the only way for them to protest their block, short of socking up. -- Nx / talk 18:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I believed that was the same person that created an account called TyGayAtheist, whose block I changed to prohibit using his talk page because I didn't think he ought to be given a chance to explain creating such an obviously inappropriate user name with either account. We don't have any guidelines or even much of an emerging custom and practice for when to disable the ability to edit one's talkpage when blocked. Blocked vandals being able to edit their talkpages is mentioned without any guidance on the block policy page, but nothing about obvious attack accounts, which I think everyone agrees can be blocked for more extended periods than vandals. I was exercising good faith and I can see arguments both ways, but it's not so easy to say that either of us is more right than the other. I'd tend to agree with you more if it was an account with which one ought to continue to assume good faith. 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why you should keep the talk page open, in case you make a mistake. You can always lock it later if needed. -- Nx / talk 18:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess, but I don't understand why you added the ability to edit his talkpage back to the TyGayAtheist account. I don't know if you'd agree there's no reason to let a creep like that try and contest his block. I could have been wrong about the other account; I just don't remember what my rationale was for thinking it was the same person. 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Principle? I wanted to rename the user instead but I got sidetracked. Anyway, I don't think it makes a difference now. -- Nx / talk 18:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

What happened in a span of one month that made you decide that 3 month blocks for spambots are no longer ok? You unblocked a bunch of them with the comments "Excessive", "Ridiculous" and "We need sysop school", but you didn't undo your own block from one month earlier -- Nx / talk 07:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, the reason I developed blocking spammers for 3 months (yes, it was my idea) was because the vandal brake was ineffective against spammers. So, I took a look at all the spammers RationalWiki and various other wikis had dealt with and came to the conclusion that the longest span of time between posting that I had seen for a spambot was just under 3 months. I also deduced that just one disruption of the spam program seemed to derail the spammer entirely. Thus, 2 years ago I started blocking spammers for 3 months and, every since implementing that method, no spam accounts blocked for that time became problems afterwards. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 07:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, although I'd only dish out 3 month blocks if the spambot uses an IP repeatedly. What bothers me is that Nutty questions the competence of others for blocking a spambot for 3 months - something he has also done regularly in the past. -- Nx / talk 08:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If the block was labeled vandalism I removed it as excessive. Otherwise I agree with Goonie's approach Re spam and follow it. Vandalism /= spambot. 12:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got it a little wrong now that I'm seeing your post again - I've seen Goonie's rationale for blocking spambots for 3 months based on his observation of the pattern from RWW. What blockers I reversed labeled as vandalism may actually have been spam, in which case the longer blocks would have been alright. I don't know. My unblocks were based on the label, not the content since I didn't check all their contribs. 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The blocks you reversed were all for the same kind of spam. You mean to say that you didn't even check to see if the block was justified before undoing it and chiding the blocker? -- Nx / talk 18:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I didn't check because the blocker checked the wrong box. I'll be more careful in the future now that I see people aren't necessarily consistent in how they describe the reason for the block. 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is cute

until you listen to the lyrics.
Then you'll never sleep again. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cute girl. I'd stab her with my mutton dagger. Also...

15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yo!

How's it going with the eCig? Still going strong or have you given up with it yet? I've moved onto Clearomisers now. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah dude. I love it. Thanks again for the gift. It's great to use when I'm jonesing for nicotine in my living room or in bed, where I don't smoke. Those atomizers look like they'd solve the only real gripe I've got about these eCigs: the filler ends up contracting above the heating elements, making it necessary to heat it longer to get a good strong vape. I also find that it helps for a little while to stick a paper clip in the cartridge and pull the filler down a bit so it'll be in closer contact with the heating element. These new cartridges look great. 14:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The clearos are OK. Boge cartomisers are also pretty good. The Tank system is still a good all-rounder. I'd say give the clearos a go and see if you prefer them. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ill go see if my weirdo tobacconist has one. Thanks. 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Witness the fitness

Ace^{of Spades} 01:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight

the fucking "expert" on evilution doesn't even know what the word "fitness" means? sterile^talk 23:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as Hawking shouldn't do theology Philip shouldn't do biology. It'd be intteresting to see Philip's take on that article. Ace^{of Spades} 23:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Simmer down, punks. Of course Philip knows what fitness means. He knows what fitness means a lot better than you do, obviously. Fitness means good if he likes it or can think of an ad hoc reason why it would benefit an organism, even if it has nothing to do with genotypic expression and therefore isn't related to a passable trait. Fitness does not mean the increasing frequency of a passable trait within a population, whether or not its expression is even outwardly obvious. DO NOT TALK ABOUT PATHWAYS. DO NOT TALK ABOUT EVEN SUBTLE DIFFERENCES IN PROTEIN FOLDING ACCUMULATED OVER 3 BILLION YEARS OF EVOLUTION. DO NOT TALK ABOUT POPULATION GENETICS. definitely don't talk about genetic drift. Natural selection means an individual surviving because it's got that good trait Philip likes, like "healthy," and therefore survives. I can only conclude that your failure to understand is due to your having also failed to read the material cited. It's all right there in the first paragraph from the Journal of Creation, so it's right and you're wrong:

“”We are repeatedly told predators perform the crucial task of allowing only the fit prey to survive and reproduce. By removing the weakest individuals, the predators are thought to power the evolutionary process. This ‘selection of the fittest’ is said to be the driving force of evolution. Without predators harvesting those less fit, evolution is a theory without a mechanism, an idea without scientific merit. But do the scientific data support this scenario?

Maybe if you weren't so obtuse and slothful in overlooking the mainstream research that the CMI paper is based on you'd learn something, asshole. 23:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Simmer down, punks. Typical mudslinging.

Natural selection means an individual surviving because it's got that good trait Philip likes, like "healthy," and therefore survives. Putting that way makes it a tautology (which doesn't mean it's incorrect), but is perhaps not the best way of defining it.

evolution is a theory without a mechanism That's because evolution doesn't ever occur.

obtuse and slothful More mockery. (Shit, I've been called obtuse twice in a few days. I'll go cry in a corner now.) That's shows you don't have an argument. sterile^talk 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Natural selection means predators kill the smallest and the weakest first, because they make the most wretched meals. There is absolutely no reason that you would expend three times the calories to get a meal with ten times the calories. Because opossums exist, there is no natural selection, and therefore natural selection never generated new information.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm tickled that creatards accept natural selection at least insofar as it's a mechanism for "microevolution," but it otherwise lacks "explanatory power" and isn't deterministic. Cool stuff. 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ears up sinners! The crank who made up his own religion and the fundie zealot both agree that once you redefine fitness and natural selection the definitions are tautologically. Someone go wake up the academy so we can fire all those pseudoscientist biology professors and convert the biology departments to biblical apologetics. Chop chop assholes. 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't get the whole tautology complaint. A definition is not a logical argument, especially not an if-then argument, and ought to stand as a linguistic representation of a broader concept that can distinguish between what is and what is not defined. At some level, it ought to be linguistically equivalent, which sort of is "tautological," but tautological isn't the word for it. Like, duh. sterile^talk 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not "tautology" is the right word for it, I do think there is a certain circularity to, maybe not all definitions of "natural selection", but at least some of the popular (mis)interpretations to it. However, in the real world, circularity is at times inevitable, and not necessarily fatal. Philip may see that circularity as a problem with natural selection, but I don't; I have no problems with the idea of natural selection. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip claims not to, inasmuch as it explains small varations. I would also say that you have to remember that without genetics, saying that phenotypes will be preserved each generation is not a given, albeit something repeatedly observed. In fact, the degree of varation within a generation and in subsequent generations can be thought as a hypothesis as well even with an understanding of genetics. Even if within the generation it's "circular" to say that natural selection will preserve the "fittest", it's not clear that that will be passed on. sterile^talk 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sterile, Ace, Martin, let's take it to email. I don't want my talkpage getting overrun by this creature. 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the suspense is killing me, but alas, it's really not. sterile^talk 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that my rant is suddenly fact free. Because it shows Philip as the lowlife scumbag he is. Nice. Yeah I'm not holding my breath for those guys to do the right thing on the single place in the world Philip is never wrong by definition. Horace is remarkably self restrained, eh? 00:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how he does it. Well, at least for now. sterile^talk 01:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See my face on a $20 bill

Ace^{of Spades} 05:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

I suggest you wait until the vote is actually finished, or are you afraid the scales might not tip in your favor?--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

3 months is plenty of time for people to vote; the consensus is the same now as it was last month and the month before. If you want to marshal more votes in opposition to deleting/noincluding the template, go for it. We can always revisit the issue any old time. But at some point consensus is consensus and I've waited a more than reasonable amount of time for people to vote to implement this. I can tell you don't like it. I invite you to try to tip consensus in the direction you'd prefer. If you continue edit warring before some other consensus arises I'm going to block you for 24 hours as a sysop, not a moderator. 19:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You too?

You also? That is you, Occasionaluse and Human being complete and utter tools. Nice one. Ace^{of Spades} 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BoN vote

What indication do you have that it's a regular editor and not someone's sock? --User:Brxbrx/sig 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the contributions? It's obviously the cheerleader troll? It's obviously not OU? Who really cares who it is as long as it's not a duplicate vote? Fascist. 18:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I could jump on Tor and insert a bunch of Nay votes. Who really cares? -- Nx / talk 19:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that BON votes shouldn't count for anything ever.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that policy doesn't entitle Nx or Brxbrx to remove votes and that there's one BON vote in the list - that of what appears to be a regular editor. Jesus Fuck. 19:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I think the votes should be there but not be counted. Though the result would be the same.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy about who is entitled to vote on deletion? I don't think so. Bricks raised a valid point, and while edit warring over it wasn't exactly the smartest thing to do, your threats and 1 day block was behavior becoming of a CP sysop, not an RW moderator. -- Nx / talk 19:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a valid point since it's an editor. There's no policy that permits either of you to jack a vote like that. Get off your fucking authoritarian kicks. Blocking someone for such a fundamental disenfranchisement is entirely appropriate. Want to decide who gets to remove votes? Go make vote on it. Do it again and I'm blocking. This time as a moderator. 19:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So, if an IP has prior edits they're an editor and are entitled to vote? How many edits those the IP have to have? Does vandalism count? -- Nx / talk 20:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care. Are you disputing that's the cheerleader troll? If so then we can have a discussion about whether it's an actual editor or not. 20:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to care enough to threaten me and Brxbrx with a 1 day block for removing the vote. -- Nx / talk 20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the answer to your hypothetical question. Unless you've got some evidence that this isn't an editor, what's the big deal, Nx? If it's an editor, I'm going to block you for removing the vote again just like I'd block you for removing anyone else's vote multiple times without cause. 20:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the big deal? You threatening us with blocks. Nothing Bricks did warranted a 1 day block. -- Nx / talk 20:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you're wrong. Removing a vote is big shit. And when he does it just to stir shit it's going to get a strong response. So disagree with me if you want. Like I said, I'll block you or him for doing it again. And then you can coop me. 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing a vote is big shit Why? When is an IP entitled to a vote? I don't know and I don't care. -- Nx / talk 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is going nowhere. If you've got some evidence that it's not an editor or that there's some policy somewhere that BONs don't get to vote on matters of that nature then show me and I'll tell you I'm wrong. There's precedent for BONs not voting for coop sanctions and elections. There is none for deleting a page of all things. If you can't understand why unilaterally deciding that a vote doesn't count isn't a big deal then you've got some kind of fundamental misunderstanding of natural justice that I'm not going to try to correct. Anyway, I'm supposed to be with friends. I'll be back tomorrow. 20:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not with removing the vote, but with your threat and block. There is no policy and no precedent. SuspectedReplicant, Brxbrx, BobM and myself believe that the BoN vote should be stricken. You don't. That's fine. But threatening us with blocks and blocking Brxbrx is not fine. Your block was entirely unjustified. -- Nx / talk 20:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I didn't actually remove the vote. Brxbrx commented it out, I just changed that to a strikeout and an indent. -- Nx / talk 20:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nutty isn't interested in rules. He's only interested in protecting his buddy Human. THe pair of them should spend more time fucking each other and less time pissing off editors here. 212.139.236.164 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Brxbrx did 100% the right thing, but what he did he did in good faith. What Nx has done (strikeout the vote) is fine. Since when have BoN's been allowed a vote? If BoNs can vote, ballot-stuffing will go crazy (it's not hard to get lots of different IPs to play with - I just down my DSL connection, when it comes back up I have a new one. Oh yeah, and proxies, Tor, Internet cafes, etc.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there really an argument being made that BoNs get a vote? That seems like the classic no-brainer to me. If you're part of the community you have an account. DickTurpis (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Dick. That's what I'm arguing. The user has edits going back over a year from the same IP. Classic no brainer that you have to have an account on a wiki that embraces the fact that you can participate without one. It makes perfect sense! There's one vote by an established editor, who I think is pretty clearly the cheerleader troll. Nobody's addressing that. Do you agree or disagree, or are you all really asserting without the least justification that BONs don't get to participate as this BON did. Instead you get the start of a parade of horrible with the terrible fear of ballot stuff, as if that's relevant here. Here's what: it's stupid as shit that there's a vote in the first place, but if there's going to be one with you assholes slapping vote sections up all over the place you're going to have to come up with a real policy for who gets to vote under what circumstances. Until then, there being no precedent for tossing votes out and 4 years of custom and practice in support of BONs participating in every aspect of the community and definitely talk page decisions like this (except elections and coop sanctions, which are relatively new things anyway), I consider this is as valid a vote as any other. Nobody's responded to this either. All I see is the unsupported conclusion that BONs don't vote. @Nx: that explains my perspective and why I blocked and will continue to block. Coop me if you don't like it. And I don't care if 4 people or however many else think they're right on this when every single one of them will have to admit as you did that there's no policy in their support and that there's 4 years of custom and practice the other way. 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Nutty Roux--68.225.194.245 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The above user is not NR and has been summarily blocked for impersonating him. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You delete a BoN comment from your talk page, but think BoNs should be allowed to vote? Don't you see the contradiction here? If BoNs are allowed to vote, you should expect to see about 180,000 votes for whatever position I support any time there's a vote. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You really are thick. I deleted a comment form an IP saying Huw and I should keep fucking each other. You want more trouble with me like we had in May? If not strap your brain on tighter, asshole. 23:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Very immoderate language, coming from a moderator. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a moderator here, Maratrean. I'll tell you when I'm moderating. 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I went away, hoping you'd learn to keep your head out of your arse in the meantime. You haven't. And if you're not moderating, remove the symbol from your sig. Or better still, resign. Or better still, leave the fucking site. Your contributions are not welcome. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make peace with you after yours attacks on me and Human at RWW, you edit warring me here, you edit warring me on RWW over those attacks, and removing my rights and blocking me on RWW in order to silence me from defending myself and Human. You expressly declined and your first interaction with me is to reinsert obvious trolling on my page. Pardon me if I continue to find you to be a noxious shit. You're not off to a great start. 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I tried to make peace with you, but you insisted on a phone call. Since I have absolutely NO desire to have my ears coated with the shit that flows out of your mouth, I pretended to be out when you rang. Please stop dribbling the same shit over this site. Nobody appreciates it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's very interesting claim considering I never called. If you want to carry on a months long grudge you need to find a more constructive way to do it than reinserting a request that Human and I fuck each other. I'm removing it again. :) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Nutty Roux's very heavily indented post above, I do not recall any vote here on the Wiki where BoNs were allowed to cast votes. BoN votes are not allowed in elections; why does that not extend to other votes? ListenerX^TalkerX 01:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not talking about this BoN vote in particular, but if there's never been any official policy on BoN voting I'd assume it's because the answer is self-evident. Anyone can contribute here, sure, but if you want to have a say in what goes on, if you want to be part of the community, you register an account. It's free, it takes 10 seconds, and you don't have to give any personal information. If someone can't be bothered to do that much then they can't expect to be taken seriously in policy discussions and the like. If the voter in this case was our old friend the cheerleader then she should log in when voting so we know it's her and we aren't making assumptions.

On a related note I think there does need to be some loose policy on when other votes by registered users can be tossed out, for being brand new accounts and/or probable sockpuppets. I'd be in favor of letting the mods decide amongst themselves on a case by case basis. DickTurpis (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now for something completely different

I couldn't find the version off From Here to Eternity so this'll have to do. Still great though. SJ ^Debaser 21:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadat X

Ace^{of Spades} 21:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

word

Ace^{of Spades} 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature SVGs

You need to go back into Inkscape and convert the text in these files to paths; for those of us who do not have (i.a.) the "DeiGratia" font, it renders differently from what is expected. It would also be advisable to save the files as "Plain SVG" before uploading them. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. Thanks. I'm terrible at this stuff. 04:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The font was working, but the rasterizer that the server uses (probably ImageMagick) was putting those black squares in at the bottom for no reason I can figure. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So what do I do then? Those black boxes suck. 05:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had a look in the XML, and I think the black boxes are the result of some Inkscape-specific extensions to SVG that ImageMagick chokes on (and which I found out about when I tried to use both programs to render comics). I cut out some cruft from the files and got my copy of ImageMagick to render them without the boxes; I will try uploading the new versions. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to upload something more vile than the horse cock thing. XML is for aliens, but I need your magic, Odinist. Please tell me what to cut. 05:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That seemed to work. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any tag with the name "flowRoot" or "text." You might be able to delete them from the Inkscape XML editor, if you do not want to brave a text editor. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My thanks, heathen. 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's surprisingly easy, Lx. If it's a vector you can literally see all the points in 2 space in the XML file. Cool beans. Thanks again. 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Another homosexual party boat

.

It's for you. Pick it up.