Hello fellow rationalists. I believe all things have a reason or rationale, but I don't always claim to know what that rationale might be. I guess that would make me a rationalist. Perhaps a believer in the "prime rationale" of the universe? This last one is one of the rationales that falls in the "not so sure" category. I'm also wondering when that Robot detector will stop asking me silly questions, or otherwise freezing out my edits here?
- It's for filtering out spam and repeat nuisances (*cough* logicnsuch * cough * Smith * cough * Mike * cough* Abd*). — Oxyaena Harass 10:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Because of your edits to and the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions,
bleat ask away.
We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:
- Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
- web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! This should help. — Oxyaena Harass 10:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Tell me more
- Hi Oxyaena,
- I've been editing WP fairly continuously since 2004, and it seems to me that over the years some significant systematic problems have arisen, that Jimbo has not been able to handle, but which have not yet significantly diminished the over-all value of the project.
- Perhaps foremost amongst these problems would be the issue of the loss of true neutrality within many "controversial topics" (as well as other closely related issues.)
- Also, as you are most probably aware, Jimbo has lost a significant amount of the "respect" which he once had, as the leader of the project, thus enabling many others to "railroad" their own personal and therefor often petty agendas right past Jimbo.
- The perpetual issue of the gender imbalance there is also a major concern I have about the editorial environment over there.
- While WP continues to most probably be the world's most popular reference source for non-controversial topics, most of those who are familiar with its handling of many "controversial topics" are already aware that WP is no longer providing a truly NPOV on many or most of these articles. I have a proposed fairly simple solution to much of this, but before going any further here, if possible I'd like to discuss this further in a more private venue. I registered my email with RW, but apparently the RW email system isn't set up as it is in WP. My email is email@example.com. Would it be possible to discuss this further with you either there or via some other more private venue?
- Scottperry (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- PS: If not yet ready to shift venue, would still be happy to elaborate further here on the above, if you want.
- PPS: I decided to ask you about this simply because I see you are amongst the few of us who have put up with so much crap, that is inherent within the current WP system, but one who obviously does so because you still believe in the overall value of the overarching idea of the WP project. Also I asked you because you are an Admin here, which I have never wanted to be at WP or here, and my idea would certainly require the help of a few folks like yourself with Admin experience to be able to get off the ground.
- PPPS: I also asked you because I see you have a tuxedo cat, and I once had a tuxedo cat whom I thought was extremely cool.
Apparently you may not really be interested. That's OK. I'm sure others will be.
- Actually, thanks. Much cooler than the way talk pages are handled at WP. I like that rule very much, and will be happy to follow it. This place is so very kool. Scottperry (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just read he RW "rule" about Talk pages at User Page Standards. While I suppose that "technically" I could've deleted that post and probably after having been here for a while, by the looks of it, I could probably actually get away with something like that, I agree with your apparent idea that archiving is generally a far more "transparent" and therefore honest way to handle such things, and I will henceforth behave accordingly, and hope likewise for others. There is an honesty and a transparency here that I find very refreshing. Please forgive my bad habits carried over from WP. Scottperry (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)