User talk:SkepticalRaptor

Welcome to me

I know that there are admins here who patrol new users. If any of you show up, can you drop one of those cool templates that point me to various advisory pages, so that I can wend my way around this place. Also, I think because I'm a new user, I have to type in the Wiki's name each time. I'm sure it's because I'm a noob. Hopefully someone can remove it. Let's see what else would I like. Liv Tyler. I've always thought she was cute. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, SkepticalRaptor! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Hi, you should have fun here. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The "type parts of our name to prove you're not a robot" thing will probably go away if you become a sysop, which usually happens when a bureaucrat notices you're not a vandal. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh no!!!!!! Are you telling me there are Bureaucrats here?? I guess I have to head off to that bastion of rationality, Conservapedia. I know they don't have any bossy, illogical bureaucrats walking around.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I'll stay. I know you all care deeply. how do I do the cool signature thing? Any instructions somewhere? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

By "bureaucrats", RW mostly means "people who have been here forever and do the background techno-crap". There's some actual bureaucracy now in the form of moderators and the RationalWiki Foundation guys, but moderators just stop the rare warring/policy-editing fights, and the RWF does the site's accounting and such.

Anyway, I'm not sure if we have signature guides, but Special:Preferences -> "User Profile" tab -> "New signature:" lets you replace the default sig. If you want to make its code shorter, create a page like User:SkepticalRaptor/sig and put the code there, then use {{User:SkepticalRaptor/sig}} as your signature. (Don't worry about the timestamp, it's separated from the signature code.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting caught up. So, I assume I could practice with the signature page until I get it right? Edit warring here? Wow, that's strange. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that help guide is here. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 19:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to ask how to do colors. Actually, I do all this with HTML coding on my website. It's kind of easy, but merci beaucoup. Now I don't have to look up those obscure color palettes. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually

Mr Kupochama is almost a year out of date. We haven't had bureaucrats by that name in quite some time. Instead, sysops can make other sysops, and the other nasty powers are wielded by moderators. Blue (pester) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, the powers that be around here seem to be much quieter and less intrusive than say over at Conservapedia. Oh wait, the IRS is less intrusive than Conservapedia admins. I've been coming to this place for years, just never edited, because I'm uncertain as to whether my sense of humor is as refined as the editors I see here. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Our standard line is that we're less intrusive because we have so many sysops that the powers are diffused throughout a large number of people. No doubt someone'll make you a sysop in a few days too. Welcome again! Blue (is useful) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I've been loitering here for years without being refined, so don't worry about it. Incidentally, I guess I missed the memo on sysop self-replication...my bad. Given that, you'll become one of us all the sooner. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I want the power!!!!! SkepticalRaptor®™ 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Annoying thing about RationalWiki

Just not enough trolling. I still have to go over to Wikipedia to revert the homeopathy and acupuncture pushing jackasses just so I have a bit of fun. I mean, don't the Conservapedia crowd come over here? SkepticalRaptor®™ 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not enough? I'm not so sure about that... Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 04:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still adding articles to my watch list. I'll admit I haven't seen one bit however. Point me to a good article for it, or I'm going to have to return to Wikipedia and revert some homeopathy lies. SkepticalRaptor®™ 04:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe PeterL was referring to the fact that we get trolled by ourselves most of the time. Occasionally we get Rob and some flyby vandals, but that's less frequent. Blue (pester) 04:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt drops us a WIGO:CP comment once in a while, and Ken has bouts of correspondence on his CP user page, though people try not to poke him as much lately. The other remaining CP staff don't really speak of RW in public, and they don't have much of a user base anymore, so... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

nor are we really that dedicated or interested in cp these days--il'Dictator Mikal 04:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys sound like "been there done that, NEXT!"SkepticalRaptor®™ 04:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in trolling, TerryH's blog is the new haven for concern trolls. Most of them also have accounts here. Omar (gibber) 04:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Trolling" meaning "asking why he believes the earth became a nuclear reactor and sprayed toxic carbon all over the universe". It's a weird blog. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I said trolling. Not batshit insane. Of course, I like looking a blood and guts. SkepticalRaptor®™ 04:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why I don't like the word "trolling" - I think it's been used in about 6 different contexts in this section alone. ^theist 09:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I should write a FAQ on terminology. Troll vs. vandal vs. idiot, etc. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was a standardized definition of trolling. SkepticalRaptor®™ 23:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is. Troll = person you don't like. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what a troll is at all. That's just someone whose feelings are hurt, and thus they accuse someone of purposefully setting them off to try and absolve themselves of any fault of the resulting HCM. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 00:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this wiki's definition is pretty good.SkepticalRaptor®™ 01:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlimited power

On the grounds that you've edited more than I had by the time I became a sysop, you're one too. Barring any recent changes in sysop-assigning etiquette, anyway.

Here's the old manual: RationalWiki:Sysop guide. Enjoy your mighty anti-vandalism powers, and try not to delete stuff, it causes arguments. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no vote? No pulling of every diff ever made? No blowing every ArbCom member? This isn't rational!SkepticalRaptor®™ 04:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Theres your vote--il'Dictator Mikal 04:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom members get free blowjobs?! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I lack reliable sources. SkepticalRaptor®™ 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No wonder they hate me u-u--il'Dictator Mikal 18:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I should just post each ArbCom email I receive here. That should be embarrassing to them. They are so power hungry, thinking they actually matter to the world with their poorly written, anti-science articles. Don't worry I won't do that. But they are sooooooooo amusing. :) SkepticalRaptor®™ 02:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dammit!

Now my clean block log was sullied. Now I'll have to blow an ArbCom member.SkepticalRaptor®™ 02:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Pick one. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 03:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It was more of a guideline than a rule. SkepticalRaptor®™ 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Attention my talk page stalkers

I would like to publicize RW on my blog. I link a lot of articles to key words on my blog. For example, the depraved fraud named Andy is a much better article here than the lame BLP version on Wikipedia. Sometimes I still link to a couple of WP articles, if they are really well written. For example, the evolution article, despite a lot of bullshit weasel words, is still a pretty good one. Even there, I changed to linking to RW's version of Evolution because our version here is so much easier to read, and actually defines it almost perfectly. Other than linking, is there something I else I can do (yeah, I'll donate too)? SkepticalRaptor®™ 03:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt mind more cash.--il'Dictator Mikal 03:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking far and wide, not just your blog but on Facebook and forums, is great. We need exposure for exactly the material it seems like you're interested in. Any donations are welcome. We should do a summer fundraiser soon. Some of the most helpful donations, however, are subscriptions of modest amounts each month. However you wish to contribute, its much appreciated. Thanks. 05:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Cruising Reddit, I notice that the a lot of people use as their "proof source" Wikipedia. I go read the Wikipedia article and find it rife with errors, poorly written, and often trying to be so neutral that it sounds like homeopathy works. I don't know why those arrogant fucks over at Wikipedia thinks their shit doesn't stink, because their articles do. I try to use RW at Reddit, whenever I can. However, if I might be honest, we need more technical articles here, especially in medical and science areas. I think that some articles, like Evolution are good, but not great. And treating pseudoscience with the appropriate level of snark (following the "we're not NPOV, but SPOV") is cool. Andrew Wakefield is an idiot. SkepticalRaptor®™ 06:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For all of my talk page stalkers….

On my blog, I've switched from using Wikipedia deep links to RationalWiki. A tiny part of it is SEO rankings, since Wikipedia uses all those no-follow tags, but the biggest part is that RW has more scientific articles. I don't want to read 5 paragraphs of political correctness when some douchebag editor like Middle 8, "scientist and acupuncturist", tries to protect the Acupuncture article on Wikipedia from any sort of science. The Acupuncture article on RW not only fits the scientific point of view, but because it doesn't have to be politically correct, it is much easier for the layman to read. I still think the best articles here are the ones that use intellectually driven snark rather than outright parody or sarcasm, but even there the essence of the article is still better.

Anyways, please check out my post here. If I'm missing anything about RW, please slap me about the head.

I guess I have to deliver $2 million in unmarked $100 bills to Tmtoulouse to support the site. SkepticalRaptor®™ 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for promoting the site, Raptor!

Tmtoulouse also accepts donations in the form of cocaine and WoW gold. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a few kg of uncut heroin that was planned as bribes for Wikipedia's ArbCom in case I didn't feel like blowing them. SkepticalRaptor®™ 16:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Help from talk page stalkers…Part 47

Couple of things:

1. My searches appear to be case sensitive, which means sometimes I have to dig out the right article. Is there way to change it to non-case sensitive? Or should I just pull out a dartboard?
2. Is there any kind of auto-archiving tool I can use to keep this page from being an otherworldly mess?

Now back to drinking.SkepticalRaptor®™ 19:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1. No clue
2. Choose IrrationalBot or the dreaded LQT.

Тy^talk 19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalGoat

sterile^{no new information} 03:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)