Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

User talk:SusanG/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


"Still bored! SJGsjg 15:23, 12 September 2007 (MDT)"

We have a whole lot of links to change from ACD to fun... I know it's still boring, but we hafta do it... humanbe in 15:36, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

I see you are still bored (perhaps even more so) in spite of my making you write "fun" on the blackboard 300 times. Have you figured out a good way to isolate all these links (besides just wandering through "fun" and fixing them)? Wanted pages is awkward because it sorts by # of links, if it were alpha it might help a lot. Ideas? humanbe in 17:16, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
using Wanted - up to 400 (+) now - not too bad & gives a count. If you knew how that dpl thing worked you could probably do it.([1]) <- look there. SJGMy God I'm bored! 17:28, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Hmm, I don't know. I tried searching site for "acd" earlier, but it doesn't return link contents. How far along would you say you are? humanbe in 17:32, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
  1. do me a favour - archive this page - too big for me. -leave header stuff.
  2. dunno how many there are (acds that is) but often when you find one on a page you find 3 or 4. SJGMy God I'm bored! 17:39, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Done. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 17:48, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

(creepy feeling you're always being watched. - Thanks pinto.

Looks like the ACD thing might be finished - you did the next to last one between me finding it and opening it! humanbe in 18:28, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
You may have spoken to soon. I've fixed quite a few today.--Bob's your uncle 08:40, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Red Links[edit]

There are 2181 red links on this site after less than 5 months - it's gonna grow to millions if we don't do summat. SJGMy God I'm bored! 18:47, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

I agree, my thoughts exactly after doing a half dozen ACDs. And writing 2 or 3 wanted pages. One source: CP side by sides. The intact links would make red links here, and often be pointless ("encyclopedic"). Another are articles people ported in from wherever, again, with a billion red links. Solution: remove links to files we'll never have. How? How, indeed. I wish there were a way to sort articles by "number of red links"! Maybe following some "pointless" wanted page sources will find gold mines? The side-by-side category? I know we had some religion article (or two) with a hundred red links in it to random biblical stuff. Regiments, attack! humanbe in 18:55, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Bags me Jesus! humanbe in 18:56, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
  1. stop people adding new ones. If someone intends to write the target then they can put in the link when they write it.
  2. ask everyone to go through their own past edits (articles they created) & remove reds.
  3. play fucking hell with people leaving loads of reds behind them.
  4. pay me £57.28 per day to do it.

SJGNot quite so bored now 19:02, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Down to 2150. I agree on points 1,2 and 3. If I create a red, it's usually either because I was going to write it or inspiration to follow it and write it. As far as #4, I want half the cash. humanbe in 19:13, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Oh, the other fing to do is take ones we know "should" be here and at least stub them out if possible. humanbe in 19:14, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

10% agent's fee limit! Going to bed now -2:16am ! Yaaaaaaaawn. ... SJGNot quite so bored now 19:17, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

2119 and counting. Night night and thanks for all the help on ACD! humanbe in 19:38, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Got it down to 1981. humanbe in 21:02, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
I vote we let it stay at 1984. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 21:04, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
You would... humanbe in 21:13, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
What can I say, I read too much. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 21:16, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Let's shoot for 451 then? humanbe in 21:18, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
I can live with that. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 21:19, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Now at 1951.--Bob's your uncle 07:16, 13 September 2007 (MDT)


Ah! 1951! I was seven & there were bananas! SJGAnother day, another dollar! 07:23, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Time goes backwards. Now 1893!--Bob's your uncle 08:12, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
1837 and I'm taking a break.--Bob's your uncle 08:38, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
1778. It's quite slow going isn't it?--Bob's your uncle 10:23, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
You're doing well bhoyo! I keep dropping offline it takes me about 5 minutes to go from 'wanted' through to the actual ref & back. Boring! SJGMay the bird of paradise ... 10:47, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
Well, at 1722 I'm giving it a break.--Bob's your uncle 11:49, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Yo. 1700.--Bob's your uncle 14:36, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Kewl! Hey, SG, another way to deredlink that might work better given your slow connection (since deleting them is upload/download-heavy) would be to start near the top of Wanted pages and write the articles that it seems to make sense we have. Some are simply short bios - like Bertrand Russell, for instance. When I was deredlinking part of the fun was writing a few articles to interrupt the boredom... humanbe in 14:43, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Ho Ho. 1598.--Bob's your uncle 03:56, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

1615 1516. I see some more de-redders are joining in so I'm signing off from this for a while. Signing off for a while.--Bob's your uncle 10:15, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Get a life! Spanish sun & on the computer? How long before reds are back up to 2000? SJG... fly up your nose. 10:21, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

I'm an obsessive kind of guy! Add to that the fact that I'm off work, and this is good therapy. And if anybody starts to put up lots of new reds then I'm relying to get all SchoolTeacher on their asses.--Bob's your uncle 10:34, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Heh! Heh! I've got my Horsewhip! SJG... fly up your nose. 10:38, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

"How long before reds are back up to 2000?" Hopefully never, or at least not until we have > 2000 articles. Now that the redlink police are on the case, new overly red articles will be returned to their authors with a kind note! humanbe in 12:32, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Update: We got rid of almost 700 (one third!) of the red links in three days. Down to about 1500 now. Nice work, team! humanbe in 12:44, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Red Links part 2[edit]

Yes, but they are getting tougher to zap - I'm not getting them five or six at a time any more - it's one by one, and more often than not they could be made into stubs. And any point now the Great Stubbing Out will need to start. Another thing - what will we do about the ones on people's user pages? Ask nicely and then zap them? There are a LOT of legal ones too. --Bob's your uncle 13:14, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Don't have to be stubs - at this point, good articles help, too. Although, a stub does kill the red link, like I did for B Russell. As far as user pages - I edit them out (the link brackets) and leave an "excuse me please" edit comment. Even if they're on a "to do" list. As far as the legal ones - hassle AmesG, he probably made them. humanbe in 13:20, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Update!!! We R teh Rulzorz. The count stands at exactly 1337! humanbe in 19:26, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
I think we were down to about >1250 before the rollback. Can you beat the "day shift"?--Bob's your uncle 16:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Let's have a contest. We'll get Andy to make up the scoring rules. It's at 1300 now, too bad we lost all that work. Do you remember any phat places we cured then lost? humanbe in 16:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there were a few multiple hits - some of the numbers are still acd and/or fun. Edited quite a few talk pages as well - though I see you just fixed mine. I think I fixed at least one in yours as well. Also got dead ends down to less than 20. Orphaned to three or four. (though there's not much in there.) --Bob's your uncle 16:27, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota[edit]

Just got booted off with the stop using my cp message - again. (isn't "gotten" horrid) SJGMay the bird of paradise ... 11:02, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, I saw that too. I've mailed Trent, put a question on the forum and the mainpage. If it's overused now, what will it be like when the US gets up to speed?--Bob's your uncle 11:21, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
Trent posted on the mainpage that he's on it.--Bob's your uncle 11:49, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

link discipline[edit]

Red links:

  • Physical attractiveness stereotype
  • Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy
  • Actor-observer bias
  • Worse-than-average effect
  • Subject-expectancy effect
  • Illegal drug

Just a few examples. If the authors of these (and a zillion like them!) thought there should be articles to blue link them, then why didn't they write them? If they didn't think there should be an article, why put them in as links? SJGMay the bird of paradise ... 21:18, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Don't you just love that word "discipline"?--Bob's your uncle 14:09, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Heh! Heh! I've got my Horsewhip! SJG... fly up your nose. 15:10, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
I'm going to port over my "magic list" of links to the recent changes header soon - the links I use to try to make better wiki work - all articles, categories, templates, etc. One stop shopping for special pages! Whoever redlinked "illegal drug" should have found our articles on drugs, whatever it's called. Discipline is a great album, by the way. humanbe in 14:15, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

is it just me?[edit]

/wiki/Main_Page was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/1.3.39 Server at Port 80

RationalWiki has a problem Fatal error: Call to a member function selectRow() on a non-object in /home/rationa2/public_html/wiki/includes/User.php on line 752

Time:(16:12 GMT 15 sep 07) 13:01, 15 September 2007 (EDT) (SusanG)

Again!! SJGsjg 13:08, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

people are going to need patients with me, Murphy's law is kicking my ass. 13:10, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

'sOK - I just wondered. No complaints just admiration for esoteric knowledge/abilities SJGsjg 13:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Ugh we just had an 8 hour roll back, and the site is behaving differently on firefox vs internet explorer....maybe I need to drink...maybe that will make this make more sense.

Anybody out there using fire fox? 13:16, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Firefox right 'chere, I think the various DNS' were hiccuping or something. CЯacke® 13:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
I notice the forum tain't up yet either. CЯacke®
I use firefox all the time. The site was having a problem.--Bob's your uncle 13:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Is firefox working for people? Hit random page and tell me what happens. 13:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm on firefox now and it looks OK to me.--Bob's your uncle 13:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
So random page works? Check the url, and tell me if it changes between and just 13:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Mainpage gives me Random page gives me Random page works.--Bob's your uncle 13:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)


AAAAAAAARGH you wiped my .... Sob.... Sob!

I know, but we are getting all our technical glitches karma out of the way for a year. 13:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
This is quite irritating. :-( --Bob's your uncle 13:40, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Sixteen hours down the tubes! Genghis Khant 13:40, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
The roll back was only 8 hours......but yay, just everyone hold off on substantial edits for a little while I will give the "all clear" soon enough. 13:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
I was looking at the gap in the recent changes edit times and there must have been a lot of inactivity as the difference is nearer 16 hours. Genghis Khant 13:58, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Can't we hunt down those glitches using hunting goats? SJGsjg 13:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I could use an glitch sniffing goat..thats for sure. 13:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

For a fee I'll sniff your glitch. You little pornograph you! SJGsjg 13:47, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
I used to have a pornograph but you can't get the needles for it any more. Genghis Khant 13:55, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, you've done wonders over the last few days TM, so I'm not going to complain more. (But aggggaga!)--Bob's your uncle 13:48, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
I'l second that!SJGsjg 13:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
I would buy everyone sundaes to make up for it...but they probably wouldn't survive the trip across the ocean. 13:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)


I'm kinda shocked that you didn't know that term. Sure it would be more well known here in the states, but he is just such a right-wing scumbag kook-job.--Edgerunner76 11:21, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Taken this back to edgerunner's page SJGsjg 11:37, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

slogans template[edit]

Hey Susan, can you move Template:Sueslogan out of the public template space into your user space sometime? Thanks! humanbe in 19:02, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I vaped it two days ago. SJGsjg 19:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Haha, I didn't reload the talk page before leaving this note. And of course, I didn't see the deletion in my watchlist, they don;t show up. So, thanks, and sorry for bugging you about it after you fixed it! humanbe in 19:25, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Pray - for me?[edit]

Beth prays here. Extract:

True, Humans have to have something to worship, they were made to worship God. Evolution is just another way of substituting God and placing it in the place of worship! It's very sad. I pray for people such as that every day.--BethTalk2ME 09:53, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't want some (pre?)pubescent little girl even thinking about me. SJGsjg 11:50, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

True. Especially someone as illogical as that. Seriously... So then believing Gravity, believing in us existing, and believing that we are created out of cells are all ways of substituting 'God'? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... If God exists and makes people like this, he's a psycho lunatic freaky person who gets drunk a lot... Or something... But he can be excused on this on terms of nonexistence. - All Hail Tuna 12:10, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Didn't know where to put it: evolution, atheism, cp ... It gets me really mad that someone so young should be brainwashed so completely. That's what whoever (was it the Jesuits?) meant: "give me your child 'till the age of X and I've got the adult for life." (paraphrase). It's truly horrible! SJGsjg 12:23, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
It's from either Francis Xavier or Ignatius Loyolya, and the actual quote is more like "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man" - which from a developmental psychological perspective is difficult to disagree with. ;-) ~Incidentally, quite an interesting example of how the popular imagination can twist a quote completely out of shape over a couple of centuries. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:36, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Knew I could rely on you akj. How do you mean the incidentally? SJGsjg 12:42, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

As "aside from which", "mentioning in passing", or "it struck me as interesting that...". Can it mean something else? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:32, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

No! no! no! -

quite an interesting example of how the popular imagination can twist a quote completely out of shape over a couple of centuries.

SJGsjg 13:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh. Well, I noted through a couple of entirely unscientific Google searches that there seems to be a not unsubstantial number of people out there who either think that the "mine for life" version is correct, or that the "I'll show you the man" one has something ominous to do with brainwashing or whatever. I just find this transition from the actual quote into the incorrect "we all know the Jesuits say this" popular meme interesting. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:15, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Geez, and I thought it was Skinner or one of his acolytes... humanbe in 14:18, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Mmm... I must admit ... Must look into it SJGsjg 14:21, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
So quote 1 is (apparently) : "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man" which presumably by stages becomes ""give me your child 'till the age of X and I've got the adult for life." The first part is really the same, so the difference is between "and I will give you the man" and "and I've got the adult for life." Was the intent of the original quote different from the newer version? If so how is it different?--Bob's your uncle 14:39, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
I think the original was more about "building character", or some such. The latter version is more about pwning the poor critter - "giving you the man" versus "I've got the adult". humanbe in 14:59, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
The former is a recognition that many of the values we develop later in life are based in inputs we receive during our childhoods - and by extension that educating children is actually an important thing, something that was far from obvious in the 16th century. The second just seems to play on the old "subversive brainwashing Jesuits" meme. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:06, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I would appreciate it if you'd all pray for me - I have RobS blabbering on in my Talk page, and I'm beginning to be worried. So, yes, down on your kness and start praying. it was nice knowing you all. DogP 15:02, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

The next time I pray you will be mentioned DP. Human: The first could be about building character I suppose, but it also - and perhaps more logically - could mean "I will give you the man I have made - including all his opinions and beliefs."--Bob's your uncle 15:08, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Certainly, but isn't that a characteristic of any kind of educational system? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Certainly, it is. And that brings me right back to: what is the difference between "and I will give you the man" and "and I've got the adult for life."?--Bob's your uncle 13:13, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
"give" vs. "got". In the give version, it could even be abstract - "show me the first 7 years, I'll give you who they turn out to be". The second is possessive, implying control. A fine difference, that certainly overlaps, but each connotation covers some slightly separate ground. humanbe in 13:20, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
It's a possible interpretation. I don't think it's the most likely. I think they are both saying that seven years of indoctrination (or, if you like, education) are all that is needed to shape the course of an adult's life. This can be interpreted as either a simple statement of fact, or as evidence of how evil religion is depending on how you like your eggs cooked.--Bob's your uncle 13:27, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Given that a completely secular educational system could do the exact same thing, or that a religious one could be aware of the problem and yet abstain from brainwashing its "subjects", it's difficult for me to see how you would do the latter without begging the question. You could possibly use it as evidence for how evil developmental psychology is, though. ;-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:35, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps. I'm not, in fact, arguing that either is right - simply that they're the same.--Bob's your uncle 13:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Playground bully[edit]

The playground bully shows he's better than the rest: (contest page)

Aschlafly (with no special advantages) shows his superiority over the rest of his flock SJGsjg 12:21, 20 September 2007 (EDT) (I'd have put this in WIGO but the sectio