User talk:SJIHAS

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to RationalWiki! Sorry if it took awhile. ɧєɭıסş-get sunburn! 16:00, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome to the Dollhouse, friend! I hope you enjoy your visits here. humanbe in 19:51, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

UPATCAC category[edit]

Hi, and belated welcome to RW. The name of your category "Utter, Profound, Absolute, Total Cluelessness about criticism" annoys me a bit. Do you mind if I change it to "Utter, profound, absolute and total cluelessness about criticism" ? thanks -- Stevo (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Go ahead. Are you saying that you simply want to change some letters to boldface? Or is the title annoying in other ways? If the latter, I could easily understand—my style of humor is a bit different. For example, I like the pedantic style of choosing titles, as in my article "Bible, the, rewriting to suit one's political outlook", rather than the more straightforward "Rewriting the bible to suit..." Filling this category with pedantic word order like that (I'm working on an article "Opposing views on other sysops talk pages, censoring") might grate on people's nerves after a while.
I'm also not clear on whether my contributions should be considered "essays" rather than plain articles.
So, in short, I consider all my work to be in a state of flux and turmoil, and any guidance that more experienced people can provide would be most welcome. SJIHAS 14:19, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
He dropped the caps and added an "and" at the end of the list of adjectives. More of a grammatical issue, I think. As far as essays vs. articles, that one is easy. If you want/expect/invite other people to edit the thing, it's an article. If it is "your" piece and you wish it to stay that way (others comment only in "talk"), preface the title with "Essay:" and add the template {{Essay|[[User:SJIHAS|SJIHAS]]}} at the top. humanbe in 14:25, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
I think he just wants to make the letters lower-case. As to essay or not, I think the main criteria is whether you're okay with other people editing it, possibly in ways that fundamentally change its meaning. If not, it needs to be an essay. If so, it doesn't. In the case of your LA Times article/essay, I think there was something else at play -- there was already an article, so having another one would have been confusing, but your material was too good to throw away and yet too different to try to merge into the existing article. Is that helpful at all? --jtltalk 14:33, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Damn I was just about to say what Human and jtl said for me, so I don't have to bother now. Yeah, the boldface was just to show changes so as you seemed to be happy I'll go and change it. Thanks -- Stevo (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
About essays: Here's the situation. I never intended my stuff about a LA Times to be an essay; just a plain article. It was changed (amidst some other necessary cleanup of the mess I had made), by User:Linus_M.. I wasn't sure whether (a) he was offering me, as a courtesy, the "protection" of my literary masterpiece, or (b) he considered that my writing style was more "essay-like" rather than "encyclopedic-article-like" and therefore wasn't really appropriate for the articles here on RW. It seems that (a) was the intention. I waive my right to the courtesy, and welcome editing by others. I will take the essay tag off of that and the bible thing. The other article appears to be a dramatis personae of the people cited in the LA Times article. I think I will rename it appropriately, and try to combine things. SJIHAS 14:45, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Cool. One last step - if you have renamed something, and fixed any links to the old name, ask a sysop to delete the "now dead" redirecting old file name. Keep the clutter down that way. humanbe in 14:50, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
I'd say your articles were more "essay-like" that "consensus-document-like", which is in no way putting them down, and others may disagree. If you take the essay tags off them as you say, we could see what becomes of them. Maybe there's the possibility of having articles in the essay: namespace but without the essay tag, so that they'd still be in a sort of essay style but could be edited by anyone?
PS if one of the two lovely sysops on this page could be so kind as to delete the above-mentioned category I'd be much obliged, thanks.
-- Stevo (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
It's not the tone that is key - since this isn't an encyclopedia, some (or many) of our articles have an "essay like" tone. The key difference is multi-editor versus single-editor. (PS, someone x-ed that cat for you) humanbe in 15:16, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

may have messed up the "utter ..." category.[edit]

I've been trying to get my various articles on the Boston Globe and LA Times to appear "naturally" in the "utter ... cluelessness" subcategory, without much success. I want the LA Times item to be under "L", and the Boston Globe one to be under "B". I renamed the latter, and it doesn't work, even though similar things work in the main Conservapedia category. I need to do more work on this, but I have to leave for today. SJIHAS 19:13, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Hi, I've sorted the 3 articles in the Utter... category, and you'll be able to see what I've done to them. It's nothing you do to the category itself; you have to fix each article indivdually. Just put {{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}} at the bottom of the article. (If you want, instead of {{PAGENAME}}, you can put anything, and the article will be sorted by that text. So if you added {{DEFAULTSORT:hello}} to an article, it would appear under 'H'.)
If you have the {{conservapedia}} template on an article, you don't need to do any of this, because the template does it for you. (The same applies with the {{essay}} template.)
-- Stevo (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Time Cube[edit]

Are you sure that second site is a parody? The site links to it if you click on the picture at the top. ThunderkatzHo! 08:58, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Oops, sorry. My bad. I looked at it and jumped to a conclusion. Unscientific and nonrational of me. Fixed now. SJIHAS 09:02, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Eh, both sites kinda look like they're parodies of something real and rational. No biggie. ThunderkatzHo! 09:10, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

"Gang of..." article[edit]

What made you select this terminology? Thanks. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 14:41, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Not sure whether you mean "Why 4?" or "Given 4, why this term?". I'll try to answer both.
From my poking around CP, I found that these 4 people seem to set the policy and tone of what goes on in a much more forceful way than any others. For example (though this is a generalization and oversimplification), these four seem much more likely to use arguments of the form "Get the h*ll off my talk page" and other ad hominem attacks, and to back it up with blocks. Others tend to block for vandalism, but are less likely to have the chutzpah to block people for "We don't need you" or "Arguing", or "Non-productive", or "90/10" or "Bye".
Perhaps I set the bar too high or too low. In any case, once they were chosen, the name came from some stuff in Chinese politics in the 1970's. People who were removed after the "Cultural Revolution" or whatever. The use of a reference to Communists for leaders of CP was considered ironical.
As long as I have your attention, I'm still undergoing a certain amount of "culture shock" here, and perhaps you can help enlighten me. A fair number of CP editors are here at RW, where I assume they are treated with some mixture of civility and hostility. (It is possible to do both.) Is that a fair assessment? The list seems to include you, barring a massive name coincidence. Now many RW people (AmesG, for example) are CP refugees who couldn't stand it, but TK, RobS and Ed Poor, for example, are members in good standing in CP, and are here in some form on RW. From your page here, you are clearly politically very conservative, but you are no longer active on CP. So your case isn't clear, but there are definitely a wide variety of people here.
It was not my intention to personally vilify anyone who isn't truly deserving of same. I initially considered the "gang of four" to qualify for this treatment. It's certainly true that Andy deserves it, and he receives it in many other articles. But I'm having second thoughts about the other 3. Am I violating some principle of civility in the way we at RW should treat people with whom we strongly disagree? After all, they are my fellow RW'ers. Should I tone down the "XYZ is a horrible person" stuff? If so, perhaps the "Gang of Four" article was ill-advised. SJIHAS 15:56, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
My curiosity stems from the irony as well. 四人帮 were a group of four swarm leaders who were arrested for their role in the cultural revolution after Chairman Mao died. It is ironic, since the main point of my essay seems to be that the liberal swarm takes it cues (usually subconsciously) from communist ideals. You consciously, it seems, made the case.
I am here at RW to educate the swarm's useful idiots (no offsense, these are the terms selected in the swarm model, terms that came from the swarm iteslf), and learn about being a wiki sysop. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 16:15, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Quoting your own essay to justify the offenselessness of a term that might be considered offensive is a cheap ploy. You may be learning how to "be a wiki sysop", but you seem more and more to speak of those with whom you share this space with less than friendly terminology. humanbe in 22:41, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Easy on the wingnut there H. CЯacke® 22:45, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Can't argue with ya when I'm laughing too hard! humanbe in 23:01, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Ignore Heart. He's been like this for the last week or so. Personally, I find the "Gang of Four" quite appropriate, but then, I am extremely bad at guessing offense-levels. (And I don't know about RobS or Ed Poor, but TK said he was Leaving And Never Coming Back.) --Gulik 23:08, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Umn, hey, it's just a scientific model of the swarm, using terminology that came from the Soviet Union. Seriously, no offense. If I don't use the terminology of the swarm model, it well never catch on. In any event, after I get the model described, I will move on to designing experiments. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 23:31, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, but I'm not going to increase it to the Gang of Five unless you go back to CP and purge 100 people for "arguing". :-)

But seriously, I've looked at your "swarm" essay, and it's ... interesting. I'm puzzled by your assertion that Walter Mondale worships mosquitoes, and you don't say whether President Roosevelt discarded the donated kitchen utensils. Nevertheless, as much as I disagree with every molecule of your essay, let me say that you haven't publicized it as well as you should. I had to search RW for "swarm" to figure out what you were talking about. (OK, it was mentioned in a userbox, but I don't normally click people's userboxes.) I'd suggest that you add a mention of it to your "Articles I am most proud of" section, just below the lovely gun and to the left of Roosevelt with that peculiar birthmark on his forehead.

I'm not sure whether you were suggesting that, in choosing the name "Gang of Four" I was "taking my cues (usually subconsciously) from communist ideals", or that I "consciously ... made the case" for this. How I come up with my brilliant and inspired titles has always been a mystery. Perhaps you have just cleared it up, and Mao is my muse.

In any case, you should definitely complete your research on this, design and conduct your "experiments", and publish your results. I look forward to reading more about this, and we definitely have lots of places here on RW where this will fit right in. Once I read about the theory/model, I will be able to judge whether I am a member of the swarm.

And what did Roosevelt do with all those spoons? Goatspeed! SJIHAS 20:03, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

If you ever have to add another conspirator, you could rename it the "Dave Clark Five", or, if you want to reach the hip young kids, "Ben Folds Five". You don't have to credit me for the idea. In fact, please don't! I dunno about Roosevelt, but one of our family myths is that my grandfather pretty much made all the wrought iron in Cardiff, because he was the only working blacksmith after the War. The earlier stuff all got turned into Spitfires or butter, or something. humanbe in 21:20, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
The comment about Roosevelt and the spoons was a reference to HeartOfGold's implication that, just as Mao had secretly discarded the proceeds of his "efficiency program" of collecting pots and pans, Roosevelt had done the same thing with the kitchen utensils program. Unless HeartOfGold is being deceitful, which we know conservatives never do, he is saying that Roosevelt also discarded the stuff. As we say in RW-land, "citation needed". Though other phrases, like "what a jerk", come to mind. I guess it depends on what your definition of "it", as in "Roosevelt tried it first", is.
I'm sure your grandfather's actions were completely honorable. SJIHAS 18:30, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Of course, whatever the "truth" of the family fable, iron gates and railings would be good industrial materiel, as opposed to the probably cheaper, less predictable alloys used in housewares. I think in this case all my grandfather did was make stuff to replace what was gone. humanbe in 19:08, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Citation needed[edit]

Most of the stuff I am challaneged on, I am challanged because the challanger is ignorant of history and believes that I am wrong. The motivation is really to discredit the damning body count of liberalism. And strangely, I know you guys challange me on what you consider to be the most ludicrous stuff. At least I am educating you. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 21:55, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand. Is this a reference to the kitchen utensils? Did Roosevelt ask people to donate kitchen utensils for the war effort, and then discard them instead? This was before my time, so I really would have to read about it. Can you give a reference? SJIHAS 22:09, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I could dig up a reference. But what would it accomplish? It is not so hard to believe, anyway. I addressed this on the essay talk page:
I can dig up the cite if you really insist, but it is fairly good. (The metal was too poor). It was sort of like the blood drives after 9/11. More blood was donated than could possibly be used, but it made the stunned masses feel like they were doing something. It was better than beating a Muslim.
That is, leaders know that after catastrophes (like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor), it is important to make the populace feel as though they are contributing. Hence, victory gardens (actually served a purpose) blood drives (served no purpose on 9/11), etc. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 22:17, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Anyway, this is the source. It has interviews with many primary sources. Great program. The most in depth documentary on WWII I have ever seen. Acclaimed. Seems to be out of print. Check your library. Allocate 27 hours. I'm not going to rewatch it to produce this cite, though. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 22:25, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
But here is another cite...
While the impact of the drives on the economy was limited, the impact of the drives on civilian morale, may well have been substantial.
A variety of metals were collected during the war. One of the first drives was for aluminum. In July 1941 the Office of Production Management, in the midst of widespread concern about the adequacy of the supply of aluminum for the aircraft program, announced a two-week drive to collect aluminum cookware and other items. The response was unforgettable: coffeepots, frying pans, skillets, stew pots, cocktail shakers, ice-cube forms, artificial legs, cigar tubes, watch cases, and radio parts. "In Lubbock, Texas, a likeness of Adolph Hitler was placed in the middle of the courthouse square as a target for the pots and pans hurled by citizens." (Goodwin 1994, 260) Unfortunately, it soon came to light that only virgin aluminum was suitable for aircraft. The pots and pans collected in the drive were made into -- pots and pans. Presumably, some of the families that participated enthusiastically in the aluminum drive were forced to buy new pots and pans made from the ones they had donated.

--Hugh Rockoff Department of Economics Rutgers University

Close enough for the point I was making. HeartGoldDemonstrate the spirit of stupor 22:40, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

It depends on what the definition of "it" is[edit]

My negative comments about your essay weren't about voluntarism in general, or exhortations to same by government officials. Nor about details of whether only virgin aluminum can be used to make aircraft. I'm sure you could look up all sorts of citations on these subjects. And I think we all agree that voluntarism, and exhortations to the same, have a long history, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, as well as in other countries. And that the results of this have varied a lot. (President Ford's exhortation to wear "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN) buttons comes to mind.)

The question I had for you was simply this: What did you mean by the word "it" in the sentence "Roosevelt tried it first"?

And while you're at it, can you come up with a citation for "Walter Mondale worships mosquitoes"? While we deal with a great many religious affiliations here at RW, this is one denomination that I'm not familiar with.

SJIHAS 19:06, 27 July 2007 (CDT)


The userbox aint mine - it was in the templates - I just found it lying there. Keepyour headdown 18:52, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Cp; FBI[edit]

There is a file already, that needs improvement - Conservapedia:FBI. Have fun! humanbe in 21:28, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I'm on it. I'll try to avoid obstruction of justice. SJIHAS 10:15, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Main Page[edit]

With the your addition lengthening the right side, can you move "wisdom of the sages" to the left? I would, but I took a look at the main page code and got horribly confused. ThunderkatzHo! 13:39, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for pressuring you. I assumed that if you knew how to add a section you could move one. Thanks for asking on the main page talk for me. ThunderkatzHo! 13:49, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
No problem. Actually, the change I made (vertical insertion) was right at the limits of my knowledge, and I had no idea when I started that it would work. It was tough going, but in the end, it worked. I'm sure a guru (human, etc.) will have it fixed up in no time. SJIHAS 13:53, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Could you please have discussed this at talk:main page first? I see no reason why the main page should be loaded down with 8-10 dumb things about CP. One or two in "according to" is almost too much, and the "contents" section links to "best of CP". Please come to the main page talk and explain why this improves it, because it won't be there long without discussion and a very good reason to be there. There is already a topic started at "Featured content push down" about this. humanbe in 21:10, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


As a goto math guy I was wondering if you could review this section in my essay to make sure I didn't bungle anything. tmtoulouse beset 14:44, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

bong hits 4 ... forgetting to add citations[edit]

Yep, it was very late at night at the moment of me adding that...I suppose that I figured that it was a well known event that didn't need a citation right away...who knows. ANYway, thanks for the reminder, otherwise I wouldv'e forgotten to come and add a citation! I found one from CNN, and will add it now. -- ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠say wнäτ? 13:09, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Fox goingleft?[edit]

Just saw the words "Fox" & "leftward" in the same sentence; coffee all down my front! I should sue! Keep me in the DARK 10:05, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about that. But that did seem to be what our friends at CP were complaining about. SJIHAS 10:58, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Teh Relativitivism[edit]

A formal note: my "liberally biased, moral relativist rant" (obviously, still in its early stages) is here at the moment. Not sure if a side-by-side format is the way to go, but I'll see what happens. I'd like to include stuff about how the discovery of relativity had a lot to do with Maxwell's Equations / E&M in general, which are seemingly acceptable at CP, so I'm sure your ideas about providing information on those areas would be helpful.--Bayes Factor 11:00, 16 August 2007 (CDT)