Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

User talk:Röstigraben

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Röstigraben!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Welcome to the cesspit of the internet. Tetronian you're clueless 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha![edit]

look, this skulking around in the shadows is just not on, so please take this bucket & shovel, the symbols of your new-found status , and muck out the pig pen. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Off I go, then. Röstigraben (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Should I be worried that when I saw that, I immediately thought of Warcraft :) --PsyGremlinParla! 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that[edit]

Still not particularly good at this whole "Wiki" thing. The electrocutioner (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You can just use the prefabricated tags from the "insert" template, they'll always close it properly. Röstigraben (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When you move chunks of talk pages[edit]

Please document them, with where they went and where they came from, 'kay? Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean by adding an additional line leading in to the chunk? OK, I thought mentioning it in the summary would suffice. Röstigraben (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The summary gets lost in the history. I pasted in some comments like what should be done. Ideally with links but I was too lazy for that. Make it so people can follow the moved thread without looking at diffs and edit comments. No blood no foul, just advising. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know you...[edit]

But thank you for turning my little bit of bleh about IR into something much better. Researcher (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you don't mind - it wasn't bad, almost all of your points were correct, I just thought the core assumptions and points of divergence could be displayed more clearly and expanded upon. As I started working on it, I just found it easier to rewrite it using my own words rather than adapt the existing paragraphs. Röstigraben (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I wrote it 1) trying to be snarky and 2) when I was really really tired. Yours is much, much better. Researcher (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

At same sex marriage. I apprecreate your help! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, and if we're to include civil unions, there's lots more to add. I'll look into it later. Röstigraben (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

China's energy needs[edit]

Have you seen this from CNBC's Beyond the Barrel [1] series reported by Adrienne Mong about China making investments in future alternative & renewable energy sources? nobsdon't bother me 19:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't get CNBC here, but thanks for the link. I assume this is about the discussion we had a while back? China, like most other nations is indeed exploring renewables as part of its energy strategy. They've also seen what's coming, and try their best to prepare for it. Now, if the Chinese can do it, just imagine what the US with all of its technology and wealth would be able to pull off, if its national debate about these issues wasn't so heavily affected by nonsense and denial and would actually allow for the swift development and implementation of reasonable policies. Röstigraben (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Babelboxes[edit]

You will have to make separate boxes for each language like they do on Wp. ТyTalk. 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Whole project was just a waste of time, noone cares why bother? ТyTalk. 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort anyway. Simply adapting your outline doesn't take more than a few minutes, and it allows for customization, so I don't think we need a series of genuine templates. Categories aren't that important either, I think our userbase is small enough that most people know about each others' languages anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

Thank you for your help on RationalWiki#Language_sections! Your work didn't change the intended meaning of this anywhere, excepting follow: it was "RationalWiki (English) has its own style of presentation, that in one way or another is distinctive to the Russian section" and it is now "RationalWiki (English) has its own style of presentation, so this only applies to the Russian section". I mean, that RationalWiki (English) style can be applied to the Russian section not completely, but only to some extent (or "ratherish"). How it is better to say that?--Bertran (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "RationalWiki (English) has its own style of presentation (maybe link to SPOV here), and the Russian section follows this example to a degree"? Do you mean that you won't use as much snark or profanity as the English section, or compared to those other Russian sites? I took it to mean both. Röstigraben (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is much better. Thank you! I'll change this by using your proposition. But I think that it need not to specify by linking to SPOV. And I mean the less usage of snark or profanity than in the English section (first that you mentioned). Russian section has more encyclopedic style. It is better to compare Russian section with EvoWiki.--Bertran (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Aims: (1) Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.[edit]

Are you serious? My popularization essey titled "Einsteinian gravitation for poets" was just deleted by someone for whom it was too difficult to understand, so it looks like Einstein is treated in RW the same way as everywhere else where creationists hold upper hand and Einstein's general relativity is apparently "pseudoscience". JimJast (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was deleted because you copied it from elsewhere, and the discussions going on at Forum:Essay_standards and Forum:Deletion_policy have to do with your case as well. I'm personally in favour of letting essay authors write whatever they want as long as it's not obvious trolling or completely incoherent. But regardless of content, it's pointless to post something here that's already being hosted elsewhere, even if you're the author and it's not a copyright issue.
Apart from that, we don't have a policy against original research, what we're lacking is someone who could check your stuff and tell whether it's sound or not. This is not a research institute, but a rather small wiki with less than a hundred regulars, and to my knowledge without a single physicist. If you come along, post these essays here and say that your ideas have been rejected by the scientific community, we can only rely on their judgement because we have no way of forming our own. We have to play it safe in such cases, because the alternative would be to open the doors to any crank idea that we can't refute ourselves, which wouldn't really suit a wiki with a skeptical stance. If you'd like to contribute with material that the community as a whole or at least a few other editors can understand, that would be great, but you'll have to take the physics stuff somewhere else. I'm sure there are lots of fora and discussion groups dealing with cosmology and Relativity, places where you'll find people with the necessary background to understand and criticize your ideas in detail. Röstigraben (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let me find the discussion that I was not aware of. I was just notified that it is deleted and I should have my own wiki and talk to it instead of bothering nice folks with problems in physics. I'll be back after reading what it was all about. JimJast (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm back, with some answers:
  1. I didn't copy it from "elsewhere" but from my university page (by the same author) where, together with an older location, in already defunct "Geocities", it sits for about 1/4 of a century. Nobody paying attention to it except Crum375 who didn't like its English and so he took the time to translate it to proper English. Adding mostly "the's" which lack in my native Polish (so I have as much regard for them as Charlie Chang). I contribute this lack of interest in my page less to the lingustic imperfection (as Crum thinks is the reason) but rather to contemporary lack of interest in science since science became too difficult for the avarage guy and gal on the street. That's why I tried to popularize it in this essay hoping that RW crowd has at least smart friends who are interested in science and Einstein's discoveries won't be forgotten completely, as it looks now, that they might. Somehow I got an opinion that RW is a proper place. With null results as we see. This "discussion" which I just have read indicates it unequivocally: no one mentioned the contents (just "boooring" from one lady, very brainy otherwise, but prefering serious music).
  2. So I copied it from my old university page, since it is still valid as far as its physics is concerned. Till now gravitation is not taught anywhere. Neither in the universeities (apparently "Newton's is enough, and Einstein's is too difficult for those idiots graduating nowadays from the high schools" as one physics professor told me when I asked him about the reasons for such treatments of students) nor in high schools, "turning out idiots" (according to the mentioned professor). What Einstein discovered has been already forgotten and most folks including professors of physics and astronomers seriously believe that they are "attracted" by the Eath.
  3. The Einsteins gravitation has been replaced by "creationist science" shortly described in the above Feynman's rant. However Feynman didn't do much to reverse this trend in "science". Neither did Einstein of cource since he died to early to know it. He just laughed at dummies, Feynman was agitated by their presence in science, and we are left with the consequences: that practically no physicists knows why he/she is not flying away from the Earth and why this creationst Big Bang is so celebrated (because "it is so beautiful" according to another physics professor, declared Catholic this time, and that it requres creation of energy from nothing makes it probably even more beautiful).
  4. Why should you believe me? Why not just wait and see what happens to science? We die anyway so why to bother with the fate of future generations? Didn't all civilizations before us had the same approach? Probably, and that's may be why they arin't around anymore. JimJast (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  5. What the use is of "rational" wiki if this comunity can't tell science from creationism? You can be fooled by any physicists-creationist who believes in cration of something from nothng and asures you that it is possible "in science" since it is what these physics professors think (amd they already gained a foothold in cosmology). You can't ask Feynman since he's already dead and never liked cosmology. You have to have your own brain, which means to learn science. The case of "essay:Einsteinian gravitation for poets" might have taught you something.
  6. So please restore it (invoke this rare event), and we may continue my teaching you basic physics starting with gravitation (Einsteinian) for poets, since for the other course you need something like at least 2 volums of "Feynman lectures on physics" which takes the inteligent student but with the head void of science a couple of years (and it is only the beginning). And the most important: ask questions (stupid or wise doesn't matter, only stupid will be answered later). There is no learning without asking questions. That's why books ain't enough. JimJast (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been my experience in nearly four years of virtually daily participation in this wiki that those who cry "how can you say you're RATIONAL if you...." usually have very little of value to contribute to the project. And are often the most lacking when it comes to being fun and or/funny. P-Foster (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That's why you stopped reading their stuff before deleting it? JimJast (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Who says I didn't read the essay? Besides which, that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that you're using our community as a free web hosting service and contributing nothing in return. You're a concern troll who is only interested in this place as long as you can use it to advance your own agenda/project, which, you'll notice after several months now NOBODY ELSE CARES ABOUT. Now run along. P-Foster (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, first, why are you posting all of this here? I didn't delete your essay, and even if I had, it wouldn't have been a unilateral decision. If you want it brought back, you'll have to argue about this over at the essay's talk page. If for some reason you're interested in my own opinion, I can only repeat myself:
RW is not the place for hosting and promoting cutting-edge research that hasn't been accepted into the mainstream yet, and even less for ideas that have already been explicitly rejected. If you'd like to teach physics, you'll have to get a relevant degree and get your material peer-reviewed. I don't see a reason why people here should accept to be taught your personal theories. Anyway, no matter how much you popularize it, there's nobody here who could comment on it, even if they wanted to (which is apparently not the case). And when deciding about what to host and filtering out pseudoscience, it's better to err on the side of caution. Now, essays do not have to reflect the communities consensus or majority opinion, but they should at the very least be understandeable, so that individual editors may form their opinions and discuss them with the author. The whole thing becomes even more pointless when you already have these materials posted elsewhere and could simply link to them if you wanted to invite a discussion. Röstigraben (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the funny part: I got here accidentally. After my essay got deleted by P-Foster I lost connection to the essay's talk page. So I tried one of two people who responded to my "Gravitation demystified" and it happened to be you. I knew that you didn't delete the essay but being rather new here I wanted to ask someone how the things work here about the advice how to recover the essay as it costed me some editing before I placed it on RW. Besides, I was angry about RW acting against its own mission. That's why the title of this section. Luckily you gave me links to the pages where I could find the discussion and so I read it and came back. In the meantime the perpetator showed up too, but I was already talking to you writing all that stuff about necessity to understand science if you are against creationism (as I am). I wonder why P-Foster isn't on our side. But I ask him rather on his talk page. So long for now. JimJast (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

For tidying up my feeble efforts at the Hanzi article. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try to keep as many of the Japanese references as possible, as long as they don't conflict with the Chinese interpretation. Dealing with the characters must be an absolute horror when you're learning Japanese, as their meaning and pronounciation shifts all the time. Röstigraben (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! The on'yomi and kun'yomi readings are a nightmare and just when you finally learn that single kanji use kun and compounds use on, you find out that some compounds use both readings combined. As somebody once said, kanji isn't a language, it's two million embodiments of my worst nightmares... --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's much easier in Chinese, as 99,9% of the characters have a fixed, single-syllable pronounciation and meaning(s). And as long as you're sticking to Modern Chinese, you can ignore most of the different meanings which the characters have acquired over time, because they're not used to express them anymore. On the other hand, I've always envied students of Japanese for the number of syllables and longer words in Japanese. It's difficult to remember all of those words that sound alike but have drastically different meanings, not to mention the kind of embarassing situation you can get yourself into. Röstigraben (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Homophones can also make for some strange situations in Japanese. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 11:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Great for puns though, most of which are sadly completely untranslatable. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Classical poetry's a bitch. It has kakekotoba - hanging words - which are basically words which have the meaning of the written kanji and a homophone. Somehow you have to work them both in, and you end up with an absolute trainwreck of a translation. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Where the bloody hell were you when I was doing my best to fool the CP sysops with my pidgin Japanese? --PsyGremlinParla! 12:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Writing bullshit chemistry articles. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't I block you for that? --PsyGremlin講話 12:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You might have. But one day I'll put clamscrubbification back in that bromine article. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over the Bill Maher article[edit]

(Moved here from above)Need source for the PETA thing. Thanks. NotSuper (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He recorded a commercial for them, here. Röstigraben (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry about that. My bad. NotSuper (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the citation fix. Thorvelden (talk)

No problem, and have a sysopship! Röstigraben (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I shudder at the prospect of additional responsibilities in life. Thorvelden (talk)
Well, now you're once again one of the select few who have to shoulder the very fate of this wiki, but don't feel pressured by that. Röstigraben (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Schlafly 2012[edit]

Just dropping by to say: Awesome image! =D --Sid (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured Andy's only chance would be an all-out play for the evil vote, one of the few audiences that could appreciate his anti-charisma. Unfortunately, his uncanny ability to look like a deranged wizard even in professional shots seems to be his only talent. Röstigraben (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing stool[edit]

"Röstigraben (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Human (Talk | contribs) (Pardon me, I need this block for someone else)"

Thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's funny how we need to have special discussions before kicking vandals out, yet regulars can be casually blocked for a few months. Röstigraben (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Imprroving what I write[edit]

I'm sometimes frustrated when you take my stuff out but you definitely improve what I write. Your command of American English would be impressive for a native speaker. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and I'm glad you don't mind. I'm not against opinionated articles, and I like the SPOV, but some of your sentences just sound like something that would be OK in direct speech, but not in a text. Also, using the preview button would really help identifying simple typos before you submit an edit. Röstigraben (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Love[edit]

The Gospels have Jesus saying, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you (Luke 6:27; see also Matthew 5:44). Now, if one is not a Christian, one does not necessarily care for what Jesus says (or what the Bible claims he said); yet, even many atheists have acknowledged, whatever they may think of the rest of the book, this one verse expresses a noble sentiment. What do you think of this sentiment? And, moving from the principle to the application — Is Conservative your enemy? Do you love him? Does he hate you? Do you seek to do good to him nonetheless? Can this verse be applied to the relationship between RationalWiki and Conservapedia? (((Zack Martin))) 03:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That sentiment is both silly and impossible to implement in practice. And a quick glance at the history of Christianity will show you that the supposed followers of Jesus apparently had the hardest time in heeding his advice, but whatever. I'm willing to treat everyone with a measure of respect and dignity, no matter whether they're my enemies or not, as long as they do not forfeit them by themselves. Now I'm willing to grant Ken some special leeway because of his obvious retardation and mild insanity, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the most ridiculous, cowardly and vindictive among CP's already impressive collection of small-minded thugs. Just take a look at his actions, the childish attacks on people he wants to "debate", only to scamper off when he's called out on his bluff. The undeserved blocks against users, followed by taunts once they can't respond anymore. The vandalizing of good articles that other editors have worked hard for, the chasing away of said quality editors because they don't share his YEC dogma or dare to complain. And there was another episode last summer when he made very, very creepy threats against one of our editors. So do I hate him? Not really, it's more a mixture of contempt and sometimes pity. Nor do I regard Conservapedia as an "enemy" in the stronger sense of the word. Fortunately, Ken and the others have seen fit to put their madness on full display, which distracts from their message of hate and prevents them from being taken seriously. They're a source of entertainment, and derision is all they deserve. And just in case you feel the need to berate me for laughing at Ken, kindly explain how it's ethical to use the man and CP as tools for trolling RW. Röstigraben (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Because all it takes to "troll" RW is to create a few pages on CP, and say a few things to user Conservative. It doesn't even deserve the word "troll". The fact you call it that just shows how twisted this site's view of reality is. He is the enemy! You talk to him about anything, you agree with him about anything, you are consorting with the enemy! The reality is, this site has an obsessive interest in Conservative's activities, bordering on stalking and harassment. I agree, many of Conservative's opinions are not ones I would agree with; nor would I compliment his management or debating style. But, that does not justify the microanalysis this site subjects his near every word and deed to. As I said before, why not leave CP alone for a while, go bother Metapedia instead? They deserve it more. (((Zack Martin))) 07:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, main reason why I edit Conservapedia is so RationalWiki people will read it, and react — the obsession so many people on this site have with Conservapedia is very amusing, and anything I can do to help feed that obsession, I am pleased to help.
These are your words. Editing CP to receive attention at RW = trolling. If you recall, I was asking you why you keep so strangely silent over at CP, when all you do here is moan about how irrational we are. Why not leave RW alone for a while, go bother CP instead? Oh, that's right, they'd block you. And there's nobody stopping you from pointing out Metapedia's crazyness, by the way. Röstigraben (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
That is not the only reason I participate at CP, actually. I think I overstated things by calling it the main reason - it is one of the reasons, but not the only one. I do agree with them on a few things, and was hoping I might find there a more receptive audience for some of my arguments (e.g. about what is the correct definition of atheism) than what I find here. And, as I said, I think this site's obsession with them is bordering on stalking, even as I disagree with many of their viewpoints. They may be wrong about many things, but hey this site is too, but at the end of the day, they are human beings, and need to be respected as human beings. And, yet, all I need to do is TALK to them politely to get attention and reaction over here, e.g. from you. If talking to someone politely about topics of mutual interest is trolling, then yes I am a troll. Yes, I know you are going to react, and I am looking forward to seeing it, to see this place dig its own grave further and further; but, if you ever get tired of digging your own grave, I'd be happy to give you a helping hand and lift you out of it. Maybe if you dig deep enough you'll see the light, so go on, dig baby dig (to paraphrase Sarah Palin). (((Zack Martin))) 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You're not getting it. You're trolling because you admittedly don't talk to Ken in order to have a conversation about atheism, but to get attention and reaction over here. I'm awfully sorry that nobody here has seen the light and accepted Maratrea, but I guess we'll just keep digging then, poor, irrational nonbelievers that we are. Röstigraben (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my comment that you were "digging" has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or your lack of religious beliefs. It is to do with this site's obsessive harassment and stalking of Conservapedia, which goes far beyond mere disagreement with Conservapedia's viewpoints. You suggest I am somehow using Conservative, when I have been willing to stand up against this site's harassment of him, which makes your allegations quite laughable. (((Zack Martin))) 08:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, so apparently you're unable to understand your own words. Fine then, laugh all you wish. And stand up for Ken, but of course not not Dawkins, PZ, Sagan, Penn...hell, all atheists, evolutionists, homosexuals and god knows how many others he slanders on a daily basis. Röstigraben (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not true. I am quite open about my support for LGBT rights including same-sex marriage. OK, not so open on Conservapedia, but really what would be the point? Have a look at our website, see the rainbow flag? As to standing up for Dawkins et al, well I really don't care for their statements, nor do I care for Conservative's rather simplistic criticisms of them. But I am actually willing to defend them when I think they deserve it. For example, in the recent Watson-Dawkins debacle, I think Watson's position was excessive, and Dawkins had some good points, although he could have stated them in a less excessive manner (although, to be honest, rhetorical excess is very much his style... rather similar to Conservative, actually.) (((Zack Martin))) 08:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how often I have to point this out, but this will definitely be the last time. Staying silent about Ken's hate-filled screeds while helping him to produce more of them is hypocrisy, plain and simple. You're willing to admonish us for each and every thing that rubs you the wrong way, but when it comes to CP's utter extremism, all you say is "Well, I don't agree with many of their positions...but why call them out on it?". So I challenge you to do one of the following:
  • Put your rainbow banner up on your CP user page, state your true beliefs, state your real opinion about many of their articles. Tell Ken what you think of his so-called "essays", his bigotry and his way of dealing with criticism. Expend just a tiny fraction of the time you're investing into debates here on this. If that gets you blocked, as it most certainly will, take solace in the fact that you did the right thing.
  • Cease your moral grandstanding, stop droning on and on about how irrational and misguided we are, just because people don't agree with your strange beliefs and your weak justifications for them. Don't strut all across the wiki flaunting a holier-than-thou attitude and lecturing everybody, while failing to lead by example. Accept the fact that CP-watching is an activity many, but by no means all of our users still enjoy. Stay out of it if you don't like it, focus on Metapedia or on your essays, see if you find others with the same interests.
Your choice. You can, of course, also keep on doing what you've been doing up until now, but I see no reason to engage with a hypocrite who's apparently more concerned with how we treat bigots and slanderers rather than their victims. Unless you either speak up or shut up, I'm personally going to ignore you. I don't know if that matters to you, but you may have noticed that there aren't many people left here who are still willing to engage with you at all, and to be honest, I can understand most of them. Röstigraben (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Why must you see the world in such black and white terms? "Either you're with us or against us".
I never said RW was irrational because it didn't agree with my views. There are editors here who disagree with my views but whose rationality I cannot fault. I actually thought you were one of them, although your recent CP-hate tirade is making me reconsider that judgement. (And, as I say again, that judgement has nothing to do with any debates about religion or theology, whether that be my own or someone else's.)
You do realise, that if I am more critical of RW than of CP, that is because I actually think more highly of RW than I do of CP? RW is trying to be rational, it doesn't always succeed, but it is worthy of encouragement and constructive criticism. CP, is too blinded by ideology. Well, RW also has some ideological blindness, but to a significantly less degree than CP. (((Zack Martin))) 10:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Icons and old ladies learning new tricks[edit]

What program is easy to use but effective to modify icons like this? I don't have access to photoshop, and the last time i tried, i was so confused at all the gadgets i went home crying. (j/k - but nearly). or do you use photoshop?Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are alternatives. Armondikov suggested a program called Inkscape, which seems to be open source and can handle the .svgs. If you're on a Mac, I've found Pixelmator to be a cheap alternative to Photoshop. It just lacks most of the bells and whistles that us mortals don't need anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
second inkscape: a must for svgs. Pippa (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. I've been using Illustrator for some time, but I really like Inkscape, almost better than Adobe's offering to be honest, especially on account of it being free. Now, only if the people behind GIMP could make it suck a little less compared to Photoshop. ADK...I'll earn your bamboo! 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
For the price GIMP beats Photoshop hands down. Pippa (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
God I feel stupid. i need the Idiot's guide to drawing simple things. I had a pretty black hanger that i wanted to turn white - couldn't figure out how to do it. decided to free hand, but can't manage to make the "straight line" tool draw in white. of course, i use the pen and it's all freaky wiggly, cause I SUCK AT THIS> heheheh... :-) Ah, something new to learn. thanks for the new program. it's on both computers now, and i'll be playing.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You on Inkscape? It's vector graphics so the line is an object. Just edit it to the right colour and/or thickness afterwards. There should be something to double-click on the bottom left to bring the menu up for it. ADK...I'll waste your umbilical cord! 22:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
For the philosophy icon, I used a premade silhouette of the Thinker I'd found elsewhere. For the war template, I took an image of a pair of stylized swords, traced the outlines with the pen, and moved the new shape to the existing icon I was working from. I don't know Inkscape, but in Photoshop, the pen is mostly a selection tool instead of using it for free-hand drawing. But you can use its shape mode to make complex new unicolor shapes/layers like the ones the icons use, its just important to note that you're not drawing lines like you'd do with a pen on paper, but defining corner points, and the program connects them automatically. If you keep the mouse button pressed, you'll create a curve instead of a straight line. Röstigraben (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

US Politicans[edit]

What I was hoping to do was add a line to the "us politics" template, to say something like "The Players", and list 5 or so random people in the new category. But, i have to figure out how to do that, first.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are options for this included in our navbar template, it's the sections beginning with "Navsidebar2". You could just copy them from an existing template (for example, this one) and make the necessary adjustments under "category" and the number of listed items. Should I do it, or do you want to give it a shot first? Röstigraben (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait a second, scratch that, Navsidebar2 is not just for random lists, but all subsections. The version you want is the third section in the general template, the one with the dpl tags. Sorry. Röstigraben (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It Is Done. Тytalk 16:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Do We Have Any Dramatic Sound Effects For That? Röstigraben (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually tried it first, using another template, but it never worked. so i figured I'd start with building the category, and come back to the template if/when no one else did.  :-) My biggest problem was where to cut and paste it. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)... as for sound effects to "it's done". chilling silence, i suppose? Oh, wrong kind of "done". or "it".
Yes. And you may wish to check look at all the subcategories, such as US governors etc. (Dramatic Thunder)Тytalk 18:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Third Way[edit]

Nice work. I wanted to correct UHM's writing, but had no idea how to address the content. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and your edits were already an improvement. It's just that he basically confused the Third Way with South American Bolivarianism or "21st-century-socialism", so it had to be rewritten completely. Röstigraben (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, some people (and that is not me) see it as the Third Way. But I wont waste my time discussing that. --ʤɱ structuralist 15:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't see it as the Third Way, so you wrote an article describing it as the Third Way. Makes perfect sense. I don't really care what "some people" - whoever that is - say either, because we actually have pretty good definitions that cover all these movements, and yours was way off the mark. Kinda like those morons who insist that Obama is a socialist. And apparently, not even being repeatedly called out on your bullshit will make you reevaluate your incredibly arrogant attitude. Well, suit yourself. Röstigraben (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An article should imply that some people see it as that. As I wrote it is a broad term. You may belief that the definition of experts is all that counts and while that works perfectly in science in all other fields that's bullshit, because usage defines words and terms and not expert defintions. And congrats, now it only took you one reply for an ad hominem argument. --ʤɱ soviet 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I think that's the closest anyone has ever come to channeling Andy on RW. But hush now, lest you waste any more time discussing your mistakes. I'm sure you'll find a fight to pick somewhere else. Röstigraben (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you use that stuff so often that we almost need an article on "Argumentum ad Conservapedium" (or whatever is the right Latin case for that). This is also why I don't want discuss anything with you. Anything anybody who disagrees gets is "you talk like somebody from Conservapedia". --ʤɱ atheist 16:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Poverty of Theology[edit]

Hello! Did you read a book "Das Elend der Theologie" of Hans Albert, 1979? I don't know Germany, but the title looking promisingly. And there is no Russian and even no English translation of this book.--Mr. B 22:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bertran, sorry, I'm not familiar with that book. It apparently deals only with the specific theology of Hans Küng, which may also be the reason why it's never been translated. Küng has been somewhat prominent in Germany since he broke with the Vatican in the 1970s, but maybe he's not as well-known abroad. How's the Russian wiki coming along, by the way? Röstigraben (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! At ru.rw there are two prominent users: me and Nemerux. He started but not finished yet a translation of Skeptic's Annotated Bible. And I expand a list of topics that will be concidered by ru.rw, using the English version as a main pattern. See, for example, The list of 100 required articles, that has been formed prominently by using of list of the most viewed articles in RationalWiki.--Mr. B 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)