User talk:Nx/Archive9

This is an archive
Please do not edit this page
To leave a message, return to my talk page

Archives:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

, (new)(back)

Thank you

For this fix. I wasn't sure how to do it, but I know in the future. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the RW logo in an image

I'm working on a few ideas for an image to represent the shrine thing that Goonie started. In case you hadn't followed the SB discussion, it's a page for writing messages for people who've retired. Would it be okay to use the RW brain logo in an image? The main idea right now involves gravestones, and I'd like to stick the RW logo on there. I'm working with PD images, so we'd be free to attach an RW-exclusive licence on any images I produuce. Media:RWLogo65px.png would probably do the job. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I turned over all rights to Trent, so it's him you should be asking, but I'm pretty sure it'd be okay. -- Nx / talk 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Nx. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Choose

Is it preferable to use the parser function method? (just curious) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Yes, it's prettier, and it can be substed. e.g. {{subst:expand:LJ}} → Lemon Jerboas -- Nx / talk 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

surely You can See the Difference here?

Do u not understod the diFference between Sexual Harrassmment and deleting posts which u dislike? i am Being subjected to Sexual Harrasmment. And I don't appreciate it. Jon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Noone is forcing you to stay here and read your talk page, Marcus. -- Nx / talk 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you Talking Aboiut I am GettiNG Sexual Harrassmmentt and u are doing nothing about it you sicko. Jon (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fuck yourself & depart. 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Did anyone get my encoded messages? Jon (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, sir. I'll miss Jon, but in time the wounds will heal. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block him from editing his talk page, so he can whine some more if he wants there, but he can't attack others on their talk pages. -- Nx / talk 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good stuff. He was spreading out a bit. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh

ħuman 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for giving me back my username, and (late) apologies for not changing my signature immediately, but since I had nothing better to do back then, I was mildly amused by the utterly pointless argument about the metaphysical properties of my signature, however no harm was meant. Apologies also for the preceding run-on sentence. --⁠ (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. -- Nx / talk 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

request for teh magic man

Can you make the link to the vandal brake from the block page be user-specific, as in http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake/Neveruse instead of just http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake ? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the man. Sorry for not putting this in technical assistance where it technically belongs. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So...

Is removing talk page comments and long-term banning the best way to deal with things? Are we going to use the Lanced Jellies after spending so much time trying to work it out, or continue to go all Clint Eastwood about trolls and other problems? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the Lumpen Jacks doing anything about it. -- Nx / talk 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well, when did you ask them to? P.S. Over at the bar, I put in a request to set up a Lanced Jellies space. Is such a thing possible? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies and my questions

I noticed that you have helped me out with my blunder with my Sandbox. Before I say anything else, I want to apologize for that. I know what my mistake was, and won't make that mistake again. So, second, thank you. But I have to add that I only learned about your action because I happened to look at the "Recent changes" - and don't take this as a complaint, rather I'm trying to clarify what happened, for my own education. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize. I assumed you were going to write something and try to save it, in which case you'd be informed about the deletion. How did you get to that page, did you type &redirect=no manually after the url in the address bar? -- Nx / talk 18:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I created a new page on my local Sandbox, then moved it to Composition and division, and only then realized that my Sandbox then had a redirect to Composition and division. I then tried to remove the redirect by editing the Sandbox with a &redirect=no, at which point I then realized that I was only making things worse and decided that the best thing was to stop digging myself in deeper. For some reason or other, I took a look at the Recent changes, where I saw your activity with the comment about my having been informed, and took that to mean that I was being told that I had given the impression of being a trouble-maker. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No no, that was not my intention at all, sorry for the confusion. -- Nx / talk 11:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just got your message about clearing my Sandbox. Thank you. That was going to be a problem for me. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrs image...

How is it that our use of that image to illustrate an article is fair, but Joaquin's use of images to illustrate a CP article is not? From what I understand, fair use for commentary or satire means we have to be doing something directly involved with the work itself, not the subject of the work in general--I don't see how using the image in the way which we are counts...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean it's not fair use unless we discuss the photograph itself? Even Wikipedia doesn't have such strict standards. -- Nx / talk 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, that's what fair use means...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but I thought it was fair use to use a non-free photograph to illustrate the subject of the article, as long as you use a crappy quality photo etc. (and don't steal two dozen photographs for one article). If you disagree, you can start by deleting all the older images on RationalWiki which are copyright violations (including your own uploads), then you can go after new uploads. -- Nx / talk 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You wanna give me a fucking writing assignment while you're at it, Ed? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just telling you to stop enforcing the rules which you yourself and everyone else considers a nuisance and is ignoring. -- Nx / talk 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it hasn't crossed your radar, but people HAVE been talking about making new efforts to bring our use of images into compliance. Things don't change for the better if our attitude is "nobody cares, so why should I?" I will go through the images I've uploaded and deal with those that are not properly licensed/not playing by the rules. And then I'll do the ones you have...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it has been drowned out by the whining and accusations of trolling. -- Nx / talk 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, look, I'm sorry for getting all confrontational about this. I'm an ass. But, 1) we're on our high horse re: CP and copyright vio, so we look stupid if we do the same and 2) as Nutty (WIAL) pointed out, part of our job as admins should be to protect Trent, because it's him, not "Rationalwiki," who will get caught in the middle of anything....peace. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reread this and this. I'm still waiting for replies to several of my points on both pages. Until then I'm not going to care because nobody else cares.

But that is irrelevant. The Corrs image is a low quality scan of a promotional image, and is used to identify the subjects of the article. The fair use rationale is therefore valid. -- Nx / talk 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My motivation is the same as TOP's. In reality I doubt that sticking this image is going to amount to much, but I'm conscious that I am effectively living in a house belonging to someone else, in this case Trent. Anything we can do to avoid legal hassle for him should be done. If we enter grey areas, we should have a good reason for doing so - such as when we reproduced Dembski's paper. That is defensible, both morally and legally, but I don't see how a photo of the Corrs is in the same league. We could argue fair use more easily if there were no alternatives to the image posted, but there are plenty of alternatives that could have been found by spending 30 seconds searching of searching on the web. If we really don't care about licences then I wonder why we don't adopt a public domain licence for everything we do? --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need a hand?

You need any help shifting the CP subpages around? I was going to have a look, but didn't want to end-up conflicting. Let me know if you want me to move a specific group of them. By the way, nice work. You are useful. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm only going after the double redirects now. If you want to help, install wiked and use the search and replace function. Thanks. -- Nx / talk 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looks like we have a lot of double redirects. I'm going to run a bot to fix them. -- Nx / talk 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea how to install that, so I'm probably limited to doing stuff the hard way. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just go to Special:Preferences, Gadgets and activate it. -- Nx / talk 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I thought I'd have to hack around with monobook.js files and other arcanery. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think this is, 2009? -- Nx / talk 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This WikEd thing rocks. 2009 is now but a distant memory. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait till it decides that it has to reload all the icons. Oh, and if you think that's cool, check out the new editor on RationalBeta. -- Nx / talk 18:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

HELLO NX

^__________^

What is happening in your laboratory of code? -- Mei (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://rationalbeta.com (and cleaning up after you) -- Nx / talk 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to tidy up user:- and user:Belated Mei some time today. I did not forget. Also I love how RationalBeta looks. Is that theme coming over here some time? -- Mei (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how many people will moan that I'm ruining their wiki. -- Nx / talk 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries about the redirects, it was automatic, and you weren't the only one responsible. -- Nx / talk 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

People always do that. But we've had a few people asking about changing our look (too much like a wikipedia clone, etc) for a while now. I think there is support. -- Mei (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Except this is still how Wikipedia looks :( I'm all for having a custom look, but someone has to create that. -- Nx / talk 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, how can I get a list of things in a given userspace? Like User:- for example. That would be helpful. -- Mei (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

try Special:Prefixindex -- Nx / talk 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also thanks to you I have discovered Gadgets. Now I can edit things with ease. Thanks! -- Mei (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there any way of using the beta skin here? It's so pretty. -- Mei (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't work. There isn't even a way to get it except copying it from MW1.16 -- Nx / talk 19:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, took a look at beta, and yeah, maybe it is prettier, but it's gonna be hard to get people to want to get used to the buttons all being in different places. Isn't one nice thing about MW that most wikis work in a similar way? I know I actually don't like ones that are too different, since all the knobs are in weird places. But then, I'm a grumpy old man. Get off my lawn!

I like the left side a lot, though, by the way. ħuman 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Monobook remains an option like the other skins. And Vector is very similar - the tabs need getting used to, and the search bar is a in a new place, but otherwise it's just a prettier monobook. -- Nx / talk 09:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember trying that skin briefly on WP. It looks pretty and definitely seems to clear up the clutter a lot. And the edit box seems to work very well. ^{d hominem} 11:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LJ badge

is it possible to "overlay" transparent gifs (say, with words) over a png or jpg? I suspect it is? ħuman 03:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes:

<div style="position:relative;"> <!-- position relative is important, because position:absolute means: "positioned relative to the first parent element that has a position other than static" -->
first image goes here.
<div style="position:absolute; left:23px; top:47px;">
second image goes here.
</div>
</div>

-- Nx / talk 09:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help with this. The stuff you left on my talk page was enough to figure it out. I will also parse what you typed above. Again, thank you very much! ħuman 05:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that

We e/ced each other on one of the reversions and I thought you were deleting stuff. Please accept my profound apologies. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. -- Nx / talk 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again.....

There isn't a rule against editing one's own talk page, just one against deleting material, which I didn't do. I moved the obvious vandalism and special treatment posts to the proper archive. Coward. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Did my block reason say I blocked you for removing that stuff from your talk page? No, I don't believe so. Therefore you might logically conclude that I did not block you for removing that from your talk page. -- Nx / talk 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit comments did indeed say it was against the rules to edit ones own talk page. I didn't specify which edit comment. Unless you once again abuse your powers and remove something from the database. Besides I didn't see nor complain about the "friendly" block of 5 minutes at all. I merely wanted to remind you of the actual rules, and the normal customs here, where I don't see other users examined or commented on for removing things. Of course not everyone can see those removals, can they? How convenient people have to take your word for that! Not that there isn't anything wrong with your word, of course...you'd never be dishonest or petty I am sure. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block you for removing stuff from your talk page. Idiot. -- Nx / talk 12:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which instance of me abusing my powers and removing something from the database are you referring to? -- Nx / talk 12:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, you are an idiot. The block settings prevented you from editing your own talk page. The block reason was "Time for sleep now. Or was that just your way of saying "Oops, I'm losing the argument, time to run away"". I thought you knew about mediawiki stuff? Bondurant (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Idiots, one and all: I didn't complain about a block. I made a statement of fact about some abuser's edit comment misstating the rules. I never usually check the block log. I saw recent changes comment that said one couldn't edit their own talk page. I thought you guys knew how to read! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Link? - π 12:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh lord you're stupid. You mean this: "cannot edit own talk page"? It's a block setting, one which you like to use a lot. -- Nx / talk 12:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hnyah, hnyah, hnyah! How right TK is! I've also laboured under the misapprehension that we could read! SJ ^Debaser 12:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I never once complained about a block tonight. I posted here because an edit comment said it was against the rules to edit ones own talk page. I was not talking about block settings for anything tonight, because the only time I was interrupted from editing tonight was the "example" I was mistakenly shown just minutes ago. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and where is that edit comment? -- Nx / talk 12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

TK: Have a look here - that should explain it all. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All this because TK can't read the block log, figures. - π 12:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you LArron, I see the can't edit talk page part, and perhaps that is what I saw earlier, either in the logs or the block screen itself. Of course I no longer see Nx's block that I was talking about, although I thought it was his edit comment to me about the rules, and if so, that is my mistake. That's what comes from making some things visible to some, and not to others. At CP we don't do that, all users and non can see the logs, all of them except for oversight. Here 99% of all users can hide comments that other sysops can still see, but the rest of us cannot. That leads to mistrust. So your constant statements of "transparency" should always come with an * saying non-sysops don't have complete transparency. Anyway sorry if I was mistaking something automated, but I have never seen that comment before. And Pi, what you can see in logs and what I can see are very different...and you know that. So your comment is dishonest. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know all logs on RW are completely public. The only thing that's not public is deleted content (obviously) and deleted revisions. However, unlike oversight which you like to (ab)use so much, deleted revisions leave a clear marker that something was deleted. In case of oversight, nothing remains in the history, just a strange reversion (and you can probably oversight that away too). Of course you already know that. You're just trying to deceive anyone reading this page who doesn't know it. -- Nx / talk 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask yourself why you're in that 1%--a position generally held by trolls and other people whose on- and off-wiki behaviour has earned them the scorn of a community of people that have historically shown themselves to be fairly open-minded and tolerant of all kinds of assholes. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a user with few more rights than you TK, all I can see is this one block. - π 12:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Of that I am very certain. I wonder why? You know what you have done, and to answer Theory, you might ask yourself why you and others perpetuate and allow others to perpetuate lies about me, why do you take another internet strangers word without at least having the decency to ask me? Like I said, none of us have clean hands. My "guilt" here is of allowing myself to be baited. This place used to have a rule that forbid bringing grudges from other places here. That was done away with because it didn't suit the purposes of a few haters. So be it. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 12:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, the reason you get called a liar is that you are a liar. In this case you're accusing somebody (Nx? Pi?) of altering the logs when the truth is that you're too stupid to use the block log page properly. Apologise then bugger off. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have server access, I am not a crat, I am not even a sysop. I am not too sure what he thinks I can even do. - π 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, there are people on this site with whom I've been communicating regularly since 2007. YOU are the "stranger on the internet," and a particularly strange one at that. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TK: Everybody can see the block we are talking about, it's here [1]. It is still there, it was never away.

But I spell it out to you, and explain it:

• 07:28, 19 March 2010 Nx (Talk | contribs | block) blocked TK (Talk | contribs ) with an expiry time of 314 sec. (5 minutes) (autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Time for sleep now. Or was that just your way of saying "Oops, I'm losing the argument, time to run away")

1. 07:28, 19 March 2010: that's the time you were blocked. Roughly half an hour after you announced that it is time to sleep - and twenty minutes before you complained about the block on this very page. Of course, you have to take into account the various time zones :-)
2. Nx (Talk | contribs | block) yep, that's the guy who blocked you. Not difficult
3. blocked TK (Talk | contribs ) that indicates that Nx wanted to block you
4. with an expiry time of 314 sec. (5 minutes) the length of the block - perhaps hard to recognize for a Conservapedia's sysop as it is rather small
5. (autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) that's the block setting. See, how it includes the cannot edit own talk page. As you said There isn't a rule against editing one's own talk page - and rationalwiki can go even further, allowing blocked editors to edit at least their own talk page (a courtesy unknown at Conservapedia). To repeat it: the phrase cannot edit own talk page is not a commandment, it is just stating the fact that during the five minutes of your blog, you were prevented from editing your talk page.
6. (Time for sleep now. Or was that just your way of saying "Oops, I'm losing the argument, time to run away") That is the block comment.

Your misreading is somewhat understandable, especially given your sleep deprivation. Your attitude on this page is harder to excuse: Insisting that someone tempered with the block log in this case makes your accusation of previous manipulations even more incredible.

And yes, there is the possibility that something is hidden. But you - even you - can check the suppression log to see who hid what - it works like the deletion log. Your block never was hidden.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is I never said that particular block was hidden, nor have I complained about the block and you keep ignoring what I said and obfuscate by repeatedly "answering" what I haven't asked about or commented on. Perhaps you are so busy formulating your snarky insults that you fail to see what I was saying, or really just don't care because you just like insulting people. I am not familiar with such logs, and I didn't realize one has to be a wiki expert to not be considered an idiot here. Perhaps you should add that to the rules here, since no one has ever bothered to inform me, nor is there a place here explaining, in detail, what each user level can and cannot see, can and cannot do. If it makes some of you feel more self-worth by insulting others and keeping knowledge from them, I guess that is indeed your right. Some of us feel better when helping and informing rather than insulting, is all. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"The only problem is I never said that particular block was hidden," You said you couldn't see it. [2] You implied this was because it's hidden from sysops. You also implied that I was abusing my server access to hide something from you. I assume you meant the block.

"nor have I complained about the block" Then why did you come to my talk page? -- Nx / talk 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't realize one has to be a wiki expert to not be considered an idiot here." Misreading the block comment is forgivable. Making personal attacks and accusing me of wrongdoing based on that makes you look rather foolish.

"nor is there a place here explaining, in detail, what each user level can and cannot see, can and cannot do." You're looking for Special:ListGroupRights. For example, you'll note that under (all) there's this entry: View private logs (suppressionlog)

"Some of us feel better when helping and informing rather than insulting, is all." -- Nx / talk 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The only probeltm is no one ever said there was a rule against editing one's own talk page. Things must be pretty boring over at that other site, huh? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Asked and already answered, Nouse. I said I must have misread an unfamiliar automated insert. I asked another user, what have I done personally to you that makes you want to be so nasty? Or is this your normal, everyday, nature? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)TK, you said: "I made a statement of fact about some abuser's edit comment misstating the rules. I never usually check the block log. I saw recent changes comment that said one couldn't edit their own talk page. I thought you guys knew how to read!" That is clearly wrong and has been demonstrated as such. I see no apology to Nx for your accusation. You then said, "Of course I no longer see Nx's block that I was talking about", which is another lie as has been demonstrated - the block is clearly there for all to see. Again, you have failed to apologise for the insinuation that people have hidden things from the log when no such activity has taken place. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

YOU

are such a ugly sad old man I shud be sry for you ecsept 'Bold text'IM NOT!!!!! I bet to have some fun you stab yorself in the foot.--Radioactive PIzza (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)