User talk:Teratornis

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

{{talkheader|username={{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}

A human welcome[edit]

Hello and welcome.--Bob's your uncle 18:04, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the gracious welcome. --Teratornis 19:12, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I second the welcome :) - Icewedge 20:34, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

A mechanized welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Teratornis!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Thank you for the efficient welcome. --Teratornis 19:12, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

A friend of Ed sounds like a friend of mine[edit]

Jeez, it could be really useful fun having you around! Hey, are you buds with Ed?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I can't say I've head the pleasure, but he (presumably "Ed" signifies a "he") sounds like a person I should try to ingratiate. --Teratornis 19:12, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure he'd like that. He is the master of compromise.
Do we really have to be polite?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
BTW, Ed is also Ed and Ed. Also known as "Schlafly's Daschshund"--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:32, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for showing me some interwiki link prefixes for RationalWiki that I hadn't figured out yet (I'm used to being able to peek at the database on wikis I administer).
See? Insulting and educational!--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:44, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
The best combination. --Teratornis 18:17, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Be polite[edit]

(excerpted to a new section) Do we really have to be polite?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

No, I need to customize the Template:Talkheader I just copied from Wikipedia to RationalWiki. And I need to figure out which god I have to propitiate to get the messagebox standard-talk style class added to MediaWiki:Common.css here (which seems to be <gasp> empty now). --Teratornis 19:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Just F.Y.I. Tmtoulouse and Linus are our resident techies/site administrators. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 19:44, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the information. This is the most responsive wiki I've seen since I ran my lawnmower over a hornet's next. Does everybody just watch Special:Recentchanges like antlions waiting for lunch to fall in? --Teratornis 20:00, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Slow night at the clinic. I've only had four patients since 5pm (EDT).--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I should probably be studying for my medical terminology class, but I would probably find some other distraction if not this. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 20:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Better dead than red.[edit]

Welcome to RW where some of us think that Redlinks are not our friends. Is there any chance of you reducing the large number of them on your user page?:--Remarcsd 19:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

There you go again...you really need a sphincterotomy. (JK for lulz)--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:37, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, but my anal retentiveness will defeat your sphincterotomy any day of the week, with its hands tied behind its back.--Remarcsd 19:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)


Sorry. You will note that all (I think) of my red links are actually interwiki links which work on other wikis, and I just got here so I haven't figured out where RationalWiki lists its interwiki link prefixes yet. Of course that is no excuse, one would think I'd have the extra-sensory perception thing down by now. --Teratornis 19:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Im sure Linus, TM, or Human could install the damn things.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:47, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
The basic method is simple. I documented exactly how I added more interwiki link prefixes to another wiki where I do have administrator powers:
and my plan was to start a similar user subpage here where I can list that sort of thing and other improvements I need to mark my territory. --Teratornis 19:54, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I for one think that redlinks represent a promise of greatness - the potential to become something greater than what we are now. We should cherish them. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:40, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

In general, i agree with that...they are also a marker for what i have left to to.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:44, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Oh yes, I also have some red links to user subpages I was about to start until everybody started hammering my talk page and bogging me down in edit conflicts each time I tried to reply. It doesn't help that my Internet connection decided to start crapping out at the same time. Jeeze, now I know what beautiful women must feel like trying to walk down the street past me. --Teratornis 19:47, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I started at the top of the wanted pages list, found a stange one and went to the source--your user page--and saw all the red, and made the unwarranted conclusion that they were all going to appear on the redlink list. All of which goes to show how wrong I can be. Sorry, he says again as he tiptoes bolts away from the hornets nest he just disturbed. --Remarcsd 20:00, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
No problem, I kind of rode in on a bolide by pasting in a mess of wikitext from my Wikipedia user page, which resulted in a pile of red links. Sort of like passing the time at airport check-in by juggling three hand grenades. I'd worry if it didn't get attention. --Teratornis 20:30, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
It's just nice to have a new, competent face around.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:48, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
By no means am I mocking the love. It's nice to have a wiki that actually appears inhabited. By natives who mistake me for competent, even! Rest assured that I see the ugly red links and I will fix them (or failing that, remove them). --Teratornis 19:51, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Whoa[edit]

Teratornis, slow down please. I don't think it's polite to stroll into someone's home and start criticising the decor & making demands that they change / import things. You might be right in all you say but softly softly please. Susantalk to me 16:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Softly, like this guy? (Say, is it true that Che Guevara committed mass murder like Wikipedia says? How polite were the show trials he presided over?) Silly me, I must have read too much into the "Rational" part of RationalWiki, thinking that I wouldn't have to worry about the style over substance fallacy, and it would actually be enough (for the first time in my existence) to just be right about something. Not that I'm saying I'm right, and I welcome criticism, but did I really seem that aggressive? I mean in comparison to all the racist vandals posting crud on here? Not to mention the other users who look to be trading good-natured insults with each other on my talk page up above? I thought I was just making suggestions which everyone is perfectly free to ignore or refute, in the grand wiki tradition. Well, this probably is planet Earth after all. If I am right, I will try to refrain from saying so, just like my hero Richard Dawkins (not that I could claim to be as right as him). Speaking of softly, softly, what do you think of Arsebandit? He (presumably it's a "he" as I couldn't see many women feeling inclined toward wiki vandalism - more evidence why we need Moore's law to hurry up and give us high-quality Gynoids to dissipate some of that adolescent male frustration) seems to have taken a liking to my "work" (I use the term loosely), as in blanking much of it. I'm very impressed at how fast RationalWiki's administrators reverted his vandalism, even before I actually saw it - this level of vigilance is amazing. (Hopefully I can find a way to fit in before I alienate everyone on RationalWiki, or perhaps after I do.) I wish I could convince my co-workers in real (ugh) life to take an equal interest in the corporate wikis I painstakingly set up for them to neglect. In any case, henceforth I shall edit my potentially condescending suggestions on user subpages first, to kind of quarantine them for dispassionate review before unleashing them. --Teratornis 16:49, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Welcome to RW, suggestions are totally welcome, and anything you can add is great. Just let everyone know what its for, and if you need extensions installed or options set on the wiki just let me know. I am unfortunately burdened by school at the moment but if you send me an e-mail to ttoulouse@gmail.com I will get it because I live out of my inbox. Send me what you need, and I will get on it ASAP. Thanks again and welcome to RW. tmtoulouse oppress 16:57, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry? What's Che got to do with it? I wasn't meaning to stamp on you (my feet aint big enough) but you're overwhelming me with your contribs. Of course the site needs improvement.
We are a friendly site & many (not I) have been around since RW1 and feel that we're almost friends. (You'll note the short user list.) Our sense of humour knows no bounds (especially Human's) and insults are traded without rancour. You just came on a bit strong for me - comes of being a) antique & b) female I suppose. Apologies if I've spoken out of turn or upset you. Susantalk to me 17:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
The Che reference was not obvious? I clicked to your user page and saw a picture of a mass murderer. From someone who advises me to be polite. I'm not upset, just trying to decode the complex yet subtle humor here. Your sense of humor knows no bounds; mine gets no laughs. --Teratornis 18:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Your wikiskillz are appreciated. Just give us lesser hominids a few minutes to catch up. Thanks--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 17:28, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Man, wikiz iz funz.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 17:58, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
I know what you mean. One of the companies I work for hired some kid who's a friggin' genius, and in six months he knows more about wikis than I learned in a whole year. Of course he did have me to explain it to him, and I only had RTFM. Now I'm struggling a bit with the goat concept. I may have to ask the goats I know about that shibboleth. The only goats I know live in Camp Dennison. Actual, real goats. --Teratornis 18:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
They aren't so much a sibboleth (oops) as a, well, never mind, im not very objective.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Ha! I've been learning wikisyntax since June This year & I find it fascinating but your experience with the young gun probably explains my feelings - sorry - mea culpa. Susantalk to me 18:22, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Teratornis, and Welcome to the Dollhouse! I might run ahead of myself to ask you to look around a bit and see what we do, here, before moving too much stuff from WP over here. We are not, for instance, an encyclopedia. We're more like a a loosely edited OpEd page, with instances of sanity or even brilliance showing up here and there. By the way, I read up on Che at WP. Seems that he killed 150-500 "counter-revolutionaries" without much "judicial process" after the Cuban revolution. That's all I could find as far you calling him a "mass murderer". By those terms, GWB is a "mass murderer" as well, and well on his way to worse (vis., Guantanamo prison and its inmates). Anyway, as I said, welcome, and please keep in mind this isn't a "specialty WP", it is what it is. humanUser talk:Human 07:31, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I would also perceive some incongruity between a suggestion to be polite if it came from someone who put a picture of George W. Bush on his or her user page. This is not to say the advice is invalid - I like to think I am at least intermittently aware of the style over substance fallacy - merely that its delivery would be a bit incongruous, which is only to say that anyone interested in communicating congruently might want to look into that. Not everyone is so interested, and I'm not suggesting everyone should be. I enjoy pointing out such incongruity as I see, but I haven't found a way to get paid for doing it as has, say, a Christopher Hitchens. (As far as politeness itself goes, I personally have no need for it - what I value is factuality. Those who make a serious go at Critical thinking in a largely bewildered world will find themselves disagreeing routinely with just about everyone. Politeness, as far as I can tell, exists primarily to mask the failure of one or more parties to face the facts. And of course it is highly impolite of me to point that out.)
By way of slight digression, I might quibble with the comparison between Che Guevara and George W. Bush as being rather functionally deficient. We could also regard the chairman of General Motors to be a mass murderer due to the tens of thousands of people violently killed by his company's products, but the International Court of Justice is unlikely to issue indictments against the purveyors of automobile violence, for a variety of reasons, but mostly because what General Motors does is not what the International Court of Justice currently defines as "murder" (with the definition being, of course, quite arbitrary). Neither is the Court issuing indictments against George W. Bush. One might argue that the distinction is moot because of all the people killed directly or indirectly as a result of Mr. Bush's political decisions, and while I am sympathetic to such arguments, I don't make the news, I merely report it. If Che Guevera executed hundreds of his political prisoners on questionable evidence presented at hasty show trials, as the Wikipedia article claims, then he did something Mr. Bush probably could not get away with doing today. The direct analogy would be Mr. Bush rounding up his domestic political rivals and murdering them - clearly, that sort of thing just isn't cricket any more. I recognize a certain unfairness in the distinction, because Che did not command the same resources as Mr. Bush, but "it is what it is."
I fully agree with the need to study one's new environs before attempting to modify them. In particular, the first question I must resolve is just how rational RationalWiki intends to be. Evidently the answer is not 100%, because the arguments I am seeing above are not purely rational. For example, User:SusanG states rather plainly that being right is not enough, and you seem to be making an appeal to tradition. Of course such statements would be perfectly at home in every social setting I have ever experienced, but they are not rational. To be fair, I have not yet met anyone who appeared eager to "go all the way" with rationality. At best, humans seem able to take their rationality in limited, selective doses. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me that calling the site RationalWiki more or less obligates us to do our utmost to walk the walk. Therefore, I will do my part, by always trying to argue logically from the available evidence, being open to logical correction, and proceeding only by consensus (even when the consensus itself is not rational, I have no irrational aspiration to martydom).
One point I strongly stress is that I will be very hesitant to make any destructive changes. My primary interest is in adding to the fine work already on RationalWiki, and only such additions as the community regards as improvements. I will also explain exactly what I propose doing, and all the reasons why, on my User:Teratornis/Wiki tasks page, inviting comments on User talk:Teratornis/Wiki tasks. Henceforth I won't proceed with any suggestion until the "powers that be" approve it. And of course there is no pressure and no deadlines. I don't care whether my suggestions happen immediately, in six months, or never. My approach to wiki editing is to have no expectations.
As an example of a non-destructive change, I adapted {{Tl|Talkheader}} from Wikipedia (along with the handy {{Tl}} template for making these self-documenting links to template pages), and the feedback on Template talk:Talkheader strikes me as being generally positive and cooperative. Several other users grasped the value of the template I added (even though my initial goal was only to put the template on my own talk pages, such as this one), and they helped out by customizing the template appropriately for RationalWiki. Now we have a tool for making RationalWiki slightly more friendly to new users, who would otherwise not understand how talk pages work on first glance. My mistake at the time was not being aware of just how vigilant the RationalWiki community is, so I hadn't adequately explained what I wanted to do before I did it. Now I know better.
It may help if I disclose my primary immediate goal: to build an index page for RationalWiki. The various goodies I am introducing are generally ingredients for the index. However, I don't have any content on my index page yet, so it doesn't yet make a compelling case for itself, something to keep in mind if the Not Invented Here sensation kicks in. (To see a well-developed example of such an index page, visit wp:WP:EIW.) Again, the index page, like everything else I would like to do, in no way displaces or removes anything which is already here. It just adds more options. --Teratornis 13:26, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Annoying Condescending Verbose[edit]

Hi Teratornis. In your description of yourself on your talk page under "A brief history of my wiki time" you state that, in your activities on the Wikipedia Help desk, you are attempting to claim the position as "most annoying," "most condescending" and "most verbose" contributer. While your wiki professionalism is obviously beyond question, I cannot help but wonder if you are attempting to claim the same position here. :-) On another point, I note that a couple of times you have chided people for what you perceive to be non-rationality which you feel is inappropriate on a site called "RationalWiki". While we are at one level devoted to rationality, at another we are interested in having fun - which may result in irrationality. Furthermore contributors are human beings, and not robots, and are more likely to respond as human beings than machines. Finally we make a distinction between talk pages and articles. Articles - if they are in Mainspace - should be (more-or-less) serious; comments on any talk page may be weird, irrational, surreal, emotional, opinionated or even goat.--Bob's your uncle 05:12, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Especially goat! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:50, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
RationalWiki has got me thinking about goats, so on my 50 mile bike ride yesterday (sorry about those imperial units for readers outside the benighted USA), I stopped to feed the goats in Camp Dennison. Even though I haven't stopped to feed them in months, they trotted briskly over to see me as soon as they saw me breaking off honeysuckle branches for them.
Everybody has their own concept of "fun." Mine includes a large dose of self-deprecation. I try to insult myself about as often as I insult everybody else, but for some reason everybody else primarily notices the latter.
Actually my wiki whatever-ism like everything else is entirely subject to question. I've only been messing with this stuff for about a year and a half. I have a lot to learn. Undoubtedly some impressions I have formed about the technology are wrong and will change. As an aspiring critical thinker I welcome, indeed crave, correction. But I expect any correction to be demonstrably correct, and if it isn't, I will correct it.
As far as rationality failing to correlate perfectly with fun, I can hardly argue with that. And neither could millions of joyous Muslims having a blast in Mecca. While I'm not the world's most sensitive person, I'm sensitive enough to have some idea of how deeply we offend religious people by inflicting a bit of rationality on them (I don't have the slightest hesitation to offend my fundagelical parents with rational arguments, so I'm unlikely to show more restraint with anyone else). I think it's only fair for us to show we can take what we dish out. I mean, come on, if we expect Creationists to buy our logical arguments, shouldn't we lead by example and show we value having someone else point out our logical errors? Or is the point to demand that Creationists should thank us for helping them to become more rational, while we actively discourage others from doing the same for us?
Yes, I do think a site which declares itself to be "RationalWiki" had best be prepared to back up its claim, just as we expect Uri Geller to back up his claims. If this were "SpoonBendingWiki" I'd look to see if the user community could really bend spoons. If I see someone telling me a logical fallacy here, I will point it out to them. I expect everyone who claims to be "rational" will actually understand the process by which a person becomes rational: by learning to enjoy being corrected, and to take ego out of the equation. The difference between Creationists, etc., and rational people is that a rational person is grateful to be shown how to become incrementally more rational. Rationality cannot coexist with egoism, so we must all learn to be scrupulously on guard against letting our egos do the talking for us.
So please, analyze everything I write, and if you see me lapsing into any fallacies, which I do from time to time like every human, point out my error so I may thank you, correct my error, and learn to be more rational. I don't mind if people consider me to be annoying, condescending, and verbose - a rational person can hardly avoid being those things - but I would rather be dead than a hypocrite. And dear (nonexistent) God, I hope every rational person feels the same way. I never want to hold anyone else to any standard I reject for myself. --Teratornis 14:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your most rational response. I must say that you have shown uncommon self-control in keeping your response down to a mere five paragraphs. (And only taking a minor side-track to the Hajj.) :-) I look forward to your responses and improvements to the site.--Bob's your uncle 14:51, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
As I have written elsewhere, why state in a few words what can fit comfortably in at least twelve paragraphs? Although I did fall short of the high standard for completeness I set for myself, just up there. (I feel every word has a Right to life just like every sperm cell, so I try to include as many words as I can. Just as I also strive to give each and every one of my sperm cells a shot at immortality, although it is a bit difficult to locate five million receptive wombs every day, especially when I attempt to woo their owners by pointing out all their logical fallacies. For some reason, that seems to be an unsuccessful mating strategy. Fortunately for my words, I don't need anyone's permission to spray them about.) Also, at the risk of beating the dead goat beyond all recognition, and to give some more words the precious gift of existence, I should point out that when I "chide" someone else for making a fallacy, I am not expressing my "feeling," but I am making a testable claim. I always link to a clear definition of the fallacy I am claiming someone else made, and I invite everyone to follow the link, understand the definition of the fallacy, and see for themselves whether the fallacy I claim to be present is, in fact, present. If my claim is incorrect, I expect someone to point that out to me, and I will recognize their well-earned right to gloat at my expense (giving me yet more practice, as if my manifold imperfections were not enough, at the difficult task of learning to overcome ego). There is often semantic wiggle room on such things which could make for interesting discussion. Interesting to me, anyway. (From a practical point of view, calling oneself "rational" implies having a fair working grasp of the fallacies which have been identified and named so far. That's relatively easy to obtain, and it gives the word "rational" a very clear functional meaning. Most people consider themselves to be "rational," but they usually can't name even half a dozen fallacies off the top of their heads, let alone identify them the way fallacies come disguised in everyday discourse.)
I also thank you for your gracious reception, as I know I must be testing your commitment to this rationality thing. If it helps, try not to read anger into anything I write. From what I understand, lots of people tend to do that, and it puzzles me. If I want to express anger, I have what I consider an impressive vocabulary of profane insults as one would expect of anyone who fights terrorism by riding bicycles in motor traffic. --Teratornis 15:18, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
I am so on your wave length. If you look at Special:Longpages you will find my creations dotted through out that first page. Though I must say your ability to integrate non-sequiturs far surpasses anything I can do. Verbosity is certainly something that I have been accused of (though rarely with that word..which is a shame as it doesn't get its chance at immortality often...kinda like kiosk). tmtoulouse oppress 15:27, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
You might also want to peruse, nay improve upon, our own Logical fallacy and List of cognitive biases articles so as to avoid linking to WP. --Bob's your uncle 15:40, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Verbosity, per se, is not problematic, although purposeless logorrhea can be messy. Knowing the mind of fellow wikians allows for a level of complexity/emergence (which is also enhanced by hyperlinks) that is not available in other arenas. Parsimony, while not to be eschewed, is not always the most desireable quality. --PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 16:06, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

WP ELs?[edit]

Well, in fact I hope to realize great economy of expression by indexing everything I want to say more than once and creating shortcuts to every topic in the index. Another issue I need to clarify for myself, and perhaps generally, is exactly how we view off-site links. Oh, I wish I hadn't said that because I can envision the ensuing verbal tsunami which will largely emanate from me (suffering from Hypergraphia is something like having a Chest-burster strugging to emerge at the slightest pretext). Anyway, back somewhat to topic, from what I have read of RationalWiki's policies so far, it seems the intent is not to duplicate existing content from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's pages about fallacies and cognitive biases are almost completely free from fundagelicalcreationist corruption (probably because religious people don't know anything about Critical thinking to begin with, since there's nothing in the Bible or Quran about it, so they don't even bother to try refuting it). In other words, Wikipedia's neutral point of view strikes me as being no handicap whatsoever on the critical thinking topics, unlike the problems the policy poses for subjects the irrationalists like to weigh in on. Which is not to say RationalWiki should not create our own pages on logical fallacies, illustrating them extensively with the errors of our opponents. I will, of course, always look for a local link before going offsite when I edit on articles. So far, I've just been cowering in user space other than maybe fixing the odd typo out there. And of course it's hard not to cite Wikipedia's titanic collection of help pages and how-to pages, which would take forever to RWify, but that's more appropriate for user pages and talk pages than to put on articles, since the material is germane to the process of building a wiki rather than what goes on the wiki. --Teratornis 16:36, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
I like to think that our entries that also have wp entries are more RW'ish--that is shorter or longer, depending on the topic, more biased, and written sometimes from an SPOV (snarky point of view). I have no prob with wp links when necessary, but if there is a good rw article waiting to happen, id rather red link it.162.82.215.199 16:43, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent since I ran out of fingers on which to count the colons, and I can't see my toes just now due to sockage)Snarky point of view - I like the ring of that. One might even say I was born for that. But in keeping with general snarkiness, shouldn't the abbreviation be sNPOV rather than NPOV as in the official guideline? Just to make sure we don't confuse anybody with the presumably more widely known Wikipedia version. --Teratornis 17:36, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused. Has the rest of this comment been cut off?--Bob's your uncle 17:40, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
I am generally against in line links to WP. I think everyone knows where it is if they want to look something up, and the blue link makes it look like we've got an article. "External links" is a perfectly good place for them. By the way, when reading your comments, I skip most of the sentences with WP links in them. If I need to go read xenomorph at WP to follow what you're saying, we're both failing to communicate. Oh, and the SPOV article is intentionally called NPOV to intentionally confuse people. humanUser talk:Human 18:17, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Time to get with the Web 2.0, human! In line links make things easier for our users, which is a good thing. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:06, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Indexing RW[edit]

Not sure what you have in mind, but have you seen the TOC on the main page, and the fuller TOC it links to? These are all articles that have achieved the label of "best of" some category. The headers also list to cat listings... humanUser talk:Human 18:17, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I put the alphabetic skeleton in User:Teratornis/Index and I copied and edited a first draft of the instructions for editing and using the index from one of my other wikis. I have a few more infrastructure items to add pertaining to shortcut links that will provide easy reference to index topic headings, and then I can start editing content into the index. You will see what I am doing soon enough. If you can bring yourself to follow an interwiki link, wp:WP:EIW is a well-developed example (actually the original inspiration), except for the per-topic shortcut links, which are mostly not done there yet. (I've been working with wp:User:John Broughton on that, but just now he is distracted with a book he is writing...which I happen to be reviewing. You'll never guess what it is about.) I have a nice example of another index page complete with cool shortcut boxes, but it's on a wiki behind a firewall, so I can't show it to you. You'll see what I'm talking about here in a few days, probably. --Teratornis 03:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
OK, I copied over the {{shortcut}} template I need to display shortcuts in cool boxes. Is it OK if I start a [[Project:Shortcut]] page? This will correspond to a similar page on Wikipedia that documents the shortcuts they use, and {{shortcut}} links to that page to document itself. --Teratornis 03:59, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I'd love to be able to make an intelligent response to this Teratornis, but I'm afraid that you lost me some time ago. But if whatever you're doing doesn't break any existing thing, and makes things better, then I'm sure there will be no objections.--Bob's your uncle 04:57, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Haha, exactly. No idea what the editor wants to do (also no idea what the editor wants to do), but no objection... if it makes the site better. BUT: I think the "wikitroll" got bored, since we did not need to worship him. We're doing just fine on our own, thank you. WE R TEH LEET HAXORZ!!! hahahaha humanUser talk:Human 06:41, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

<-- I just left a note here humanUser talk:Human 01:08, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Let Me Guess[edit]

The reason you did not start editing wiki's until 2006, even though they originated around 1995, is that it took you 11 years to get your user and talk pages just so, right? :) --Remarcsd 08:53, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Nice try, but I'm afraid you'll have to guess again, because until 2006 I don't think I had any idea that user pages and talk pages existed. (And if my user page is the best I can do after eleven years of deliberation, I should hang up my keyboard (I should probably hang it up anyway).) The real reason I got interested in wikis was because around sometime in 2005, Wikipedia articles began appearing near the top of many Google Search queries I ran, and as I began reading the better Wikipedia articles I was finding, I realized that very often the Wikipedia article was the best introduction to the subject in question among all the search results I was getting. So I started looking into wiki technology further, beginning with Wikipedia which as we all know is typically the first wiki now for anyone late to the party. I recall having been vaguely aware of wikis earlier, but absolutely none of the computer people I knew were doing anything with them, and that was before most of the Open source projects began setting up their own wikis. Wikis were not yet high-profile enough to nudge into my particular world. To my credit, at least, I did grasp the importance of wikis before any of the other computer people around me, and I'm still trying to remove the scales from the eyes of several of them (it seems almost incomprehensible that lots of people still don't "get" wikis even now). Wikis have been an interesting exercise in what it takes for various people (including me) to grasp the staggeringly obvious. I happened to need a really solid wiki to get up around the million-article level and then get blasted into my attention repeatedly by Google's deliberate strategy to promote it. I might never have "gotten it" if Wikipedia had never existed, and you can't imagine how embarrassed I am about that. I like to think I'm one of those people who occasionally grasps things before someone else fully implements a working example, but in the case of wikis, I completely did not. --Teratornis 12:10, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

anticipating your verbose response...[edit]

Because that is what you do... talk without saying anything, so nobody can critique you, since you aren't quotable. You are just a wiki-troll (gee no inline links?). What I mean is, you turned up to be our savior. But guess what? We aren't impressed by your shit. We are actually competent, and intelligent, and I, for one, am bored by your your wiki-lawyering. And your endless prose, which says "nothing" that you can be quoted on. You are not adding anything of value to our wiki. Repeat: You are not adding anything of value to our wiki. No matter how handsome you think you are. humanUser talk:Human 21:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Human! I thought it was just me!! THANK YOU !!!!! Susantalk to me 21:55, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
You just covered my ass the first time 'round, eh? humanUser talk:Human 22:10, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I recommend: : various comments & my comment for further reading Susantalk to me 00:48, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Some more links that might be of interest: wp:User:Teratornis, wp:wanker, wp:snake, wp:troll, wp:ad_hominem, wp:attack, Susantalk to me 02:20, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

A question for human: please clarify what you mean by "value." (I'll overlook the stray comment about "handsome" because not even I am self-servingly delusional enough to ignore what I see in the mirror. Would a "handsome" person spend much time typing on a computer, when he could be out seducing beautiful women instead?) I'm confused because in an earlier comment you wrote:
"Oh, and the SPOV article is intentionally called NPOV to intentionally confuse people."
I'm trying to find a connection, if any is possible, between the concept of "value" and a policy of "intentionally confus(ing) people" (also called obscurantism). As much as we all chafe under the content restrictions imposed by Wikipedia, at least I haven't found any instruction in the Wikipedia project space which seems intended to confuse people. To my mind, that would make Wikipedia more rational than RationalWiki. Just how committed to rationality is RationalWiki? I make no comment on how rational it should be; I leave that entirely up to the community to decide.
And another question: will you dress down SusanG for linking to several Wikipedia articles on a talk page? Or does that only warrant objection when I do it? (I do agree that in article space, local links are preferable. But talk space is not article space, and in any case RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia and thus is never likely to be a self-contained corpus of information. Wikipedia of course has firm policies against interwiki links in articles, although they are common and permitted in other spaces, but Wikipedia can do that because it has over two million articles now, and probably will eventually have articles about almost everything that might need a link.) --Teratornis 14:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
I know you addressed this to Human, but I'll just slip a comment in here. We don't actually have (as far as I'm aware) any formal instruction on the subject of wiki links. Our aversion just grew out of a few random discussions. To that end I have started a thread on RationalWiki talk:Community Standards to see if we want to clarify our position.--Bobbing for apples 15:01, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

APOLOGY[edit]

I apologise unreservedly to Teratornis for my conduct. I was wrong & shouldn't have behaved like a small child throwing a tantrum. SusanG 193.113.235.168 03:49, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Assuming this IP edit is from the real SusanG (something I lack the administrative access to verify, which is not to say I doubt it, just covering all possibilities here as a critical thinker normally tries to do, and I have been online long enough to have been the dupe of creatively amusing imposters a number of times, several I still chuckle about), I of course commend the courage it takes to state such an apology. My admiration for people who can admit error is much greater than my admiration for people who were right all along, because the willingness to admit error is extraordinarily rare (just talk to any creationist), and is the basis for critical thinking. A person who hasn't been wrong about something, and managed to get past it, hasn't really thought in my opinion. I in turn apologize for anything I might have unwittingly done to unnecessarily provoke unpleasant emotions. I look forward to working constructively with the RationalWiki community and am open to all feedback - no need to be nice about it, either. Even feedback which is not constructive is still useful, as it tells me whether my approach is working, or flying wide of the mark as is more commonly the case. I don't mind being called a snake or whatever (lots of people do like snakes, after all; and snakes being cold-blooded figuratively epitomize the personal trait of sangfroid I aspire to most); I'm more interested in finding ways to combat our common enemy of unreason more efficiently, and I'm happy to be called any name in the book if that somehow serves the cause that matters. In any case, the treatment I've received on RationalWiki has been far more congenial than what the Jihadists want to do to me. In a war, we can't be too concerned with niceties. If I were to crumple under a bit of mild hazing, which the newb ordinarily has to expect (see: boot camp), what use would I be against the people who built the Creation Museum within easy bicycling distance of my house? I live in the very heartland of irrationality, so I have learned some of the requisite patience and (hopefully) sangfroid to cope with it. If we let them upset us, we lose for sure, because our only available weapon is rationality, and we throw down our sword when we let our emotions get the best of us. --Teratornis 14:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
She apologized elsewhere...you can believe it. I always intend to read your entire comment, because your writing style is entertaining, but I always get distracted. : ) 70.88.105.237 14:31, 21 October 2007 (EDT)PalMD
Thanks for the clarification. I probably haven't followed all the discussions elsewhere, as might be accurately inferred from my lack of participation in them. --Teratornis 15:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, it's from me alright & it hurt to do it but I think we canwork together. Gimme a few days. Susantalk to me 14:33, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I admire your gesture more than you may know; take all the time you need. (I have some idea what it takes to admit error because I used to be a creationist for pete's sake. If it helps, tell yourself to feel good about what you just did rather than feeling something else.) I'm almost afraid to write any reply for fear I might seem to be gloating, which I most certainly am not (although I welcome anyone to bust a Touchdown celebration at my expense whenever I create the opportunity - and I will - I don't object to such gloating, but I do judge it for style points). I've always found that the more embarrassing my gaffe, the longer I retain the lesson (and recently I learned neurological research has actually confirmed this and found the mechanism, and sociobiologists are all over that).
So, I suppose the question now is when will human demonstrate your level of courage? He has a number of fallacies up there to man up to: obscurantism, style over substance, argument from personal incredulity, appeal to spite. I won't bother to wikilink them because he's already proclaimed he ignores anything with a link in it. (If "he" is actually a "she" then switch my pronouns.) --Teratornis 15:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
He admits his faults on his talk page Teratornis.--Bobbing for apples 15:19, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Mmm. We had quite the chat. Susantalk to me 15:23, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
I see: User talk:Human#APOLOGY, although I'm somewhat puzzled about why an apology ostensibly directed to me is not my talk page, where he placed the statements he is now apologizing for. In any case, apology accepted, and now we can get back to the serious business of confronting the common enemy of unreason. I was also relieved to see Locke seeming to back down from his death threat, on the slim chance he meant what he wrote. I ignore poopyhead insults, but I do take death threats seriously, and I hope nobody makes them without thinking very carefully about what they are writing. --Teratornis 15:45, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
I believe they were posted there because that's where the majority of the personal attacks etc. took place. On another note, I was 100% joking, sorry. Oh, also, if you would like me to block myself again as punishment, I will. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 16:25, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification, and for the offer of reparations. If I may select the "punishment," then I "sentence" you to re-read any five articles on the subject of logical fallacies. (I don't see how blocking yourself will make RationalWiki get better sooner; obviously you have skills this site needs. I have the same objection to throwing debtors in prison - how are they going to pay back their debts that way?) Every time I re-read articles about logical fallacies, it seems I learn something new. That's the part that troubled me, seeing the parade of logical fallacies, and only a general rejoinder rather than specific ones. I think it's very important for people to understand exactly where and how they departed from rationality, rather than just to concede the general point. Without knowing the details, we'll just make the same mistakes again. --Teratornis 16:39, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
I'll go read those right now. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 16:41, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent) Category:Logic looks like a solid start. I don't see a Style over substance fallacy article there yet. Perhaps I should start one here. That particular fallacy seems almost impossible not to make on a routine basis. Virtually everyone evaluates some arguments in large part according to how they are presented, even people who are consciously aware that presentation is irrelevant to an argument's validity. I do it, you do it, we all do it. And most people aren't even consciously aware of the fallacy. Appeal to spite is another interesting fallacy, which means regarding someone's statements as untrue because we dislike him. Reductio ad Hitlerum is an amusingly extreme example, which doesn't seem to endanger the dog's status as man's best friend, despite Hitler's well-known love for dogs. I think if we could teach everybody to think critically, everything else we disagree about would work itself out. For example, the real problem with creationists is not merely the details of their factual errors, but their inability to recognize (and preferably name) the many logical fallacies they continuously churn out. If they conceded to science on the issue of origins, while failing to learn how to think, they would create similar damage to truth in some other area. --Teratornis 17:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Since I did not do so here yet, let me be clear about my apology. I was just being a jackass and reacting to your tone - which is none of my business, and no excuse for mouthing off about you wherever I did. We're all human, but fallibility is still no excuse for what might be perceived as meanness. So, anyway, sorries here where you won't miss it. By the way, I committed no "logical fallacies" since I wasn't "making an argument". I was just pissin' on ya. That's not a logical fallacy, just a humbly apologizable offense. PS, I think your take on self-blocking as a "punishment" was very well put. humanUser talk:Human 21:01, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Death threat[edit]

Err...death threats? What the hell happened here? tmtoulouse oppress 15:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

See User talk:Human#Ed Poor in disguise?. Excerpts:
On a totally unrelated matter: Anyone live near: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA near 39.14123° N 84.41461° W. ? If so do you know any local nerds? Susantalk to me 23:13, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Why, is that him? If so I recommend a kill on sight order. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:49, 18 October 2007 (EDT) P.S. I agree with Susan and Homo Sapien
SusanG re-posted coordinates very near where I live, and notice how Locke responded. Note that no one else in the thread appears to have objected to Locke's explicit recommendation to kill me. Now, maybe everybody who knows Locke knew he was joking, but I certainly don't. I'd think at a minimum, someone should have jumped in to say RationalWiki policy forbids death threats, but nobody seemed bothered by that remark. Of course there's a lot of text around it and it would be easy to overlook. Tends to stand out a bit more to the target, though, and if anyone doubts that, we can construct an experiment.
I think it should be fair to say that if that little exchange doesn't draw a harsh correction from the administrators of RationalWiki, we have a serious problem here. Is it OK for site users to re-post coordinates where people live and joke about killing them? Is that what this site is about? --Teratornis 15:59, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, no, its certainly not something the site is about. I have obviously missed a large exchange, I plead real life constraints. I don't want to re-flare up an issue by poking at it if things are resolving themselves.......are they? I am inclined to give our editors the benefit of the doubt and won't repeat things in the future. We seem good about that, we have learned several lessons together as a site and a community... tmtoulouse oppress 16:06, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
It's probably more of an SPOV issue. Never meant to be serious. Ed gets under people's skin.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 16:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I'm not trying to wake up any dead horses by beating on them, but I was asked, so I answered. I also think after the whipping I took, I'm entitled to make sure we aren't just glossing over what was actually troubling in it. The poopyhead stuff is just silliness, kind of endearing actually, but things like death threats and clear departures from rationality may be signs of an underlying malignancy. I can't blame anyone for getting lost in that maze of largely content-free material - I kept looking for even one substantive, testable objection to anything I had written, such as maybe "The index page he is talking about won't work here because of (some actual technical or ergonomic principles)," but all I saw was people talking about how upset they were about my failure to be insufficiently deferential, or committing the dire offense of possibly knowing more about something than someone else chooses to know. The comments to the effect that "It's not what you do, it's how you do it" are nothing more than a compact restatement of the Style over substance fallacy. How can such things have any place on a wiki that proclaims itself to be Rational? Has that issue "resolved itself" now? I'd really hope the issue is not about simple rudeness, but about logical thinking. No one needs to apologize to me, because my ego is not at stake here; what's at stake is rationality. Will all RationalWiki editors take a quick refresher in critical thinking and henceforth stick to it? (Thereby making themselves nearly insufferable to anyone who doesn't?) As to this Ed Poor character, I admit to being somewhat puzzled by the comparison. I had never heard of him before, as far as I recall. It seems he got himself kicked off Wikipedia. How is that possible? Anybody who can read and follow straightforward instructions can edit on Wikipedia as long as he wants. If I do manage to get kicked off Wikipedia, then somebody should shoot me. --Teratornis 16:27, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Well the basic fact is that we are a wiki that encourages the formation of a community. We are small enough that the site as a whole can still be a single community. Communities of people interacting on a social level are rarely easily navigated through logic and deductive decision making. I would say that our social interaction and community is separate from the product we choose to create. It is through interactions that maybe laced with irrationality that a rational product can be produced. Just as a NPOV article on wikipedia can emerge from a contentious and highly POV discussion. Each of us our human on the other side of the keyboard and subject to all the range of foibles that humans and human communities are subject too. And interacting 90 percent through wiki talk pages makes it that much more difficult. It requires a lot of patients, a lot of forgiveness and a lot of understanding. Hopefully we can all shake hands and move forward, and just be that much more aware of ourselves in the future. tmtoulouse oppress 16:40, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
You may find these links to be of interest: [1] [2] [3]. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:32, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent for our PDA users) Wow, those discussions certainly are Byzantine. It seems this Ed Poor character is still actively editing on Wikipedia, so I was wrong to say he got "kicked off," he merely got de-sysop'ed and de-bureaucrat-ed, so now he has been reduced the same peon status I hold over there. --Teratornis 17:13, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting to note that he's actively doing the things (POV pushing, POV forking, actively supporting one side in a conflict while punishing the other side, calling for bogus "compromises", etc.) at CP that he lost his privileges over at WP. --Kels 17:36, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

The details above are openly available on open map. Susantalk to me 16:09, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was a joke. Just for the record, I'm a sarcastic bastard. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 16:12, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification. Not that anyone needs to consider my suggestions, but I'd suggest keeping such talk in private channels, if possible. You never know what psychos might be visiting a page visible to the entire world. There are, for example, men of action who hear the "God hates fags" preaching and conclude they should go out and murder a few for God. --Teratornis 16:31, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Duly noted, thanks for the advice. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 16:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Indeces[edit]

On the subject of indexing : User:SusanG/play Susantalk to me 14:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

indenting[edit]

May I make a personal request: if inserting a longish comment could you please indent zero please. I'm on a pda & after 3 indents the words stream down the right side of my screen one per line - I haven't been able to fully read most of your comments. Thanks Susantalk to me 17:04, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Certainly, and insofar as you have missed my comments, you haven't missed much! I've been accused of many things, but I hope no one accuses me of taking myself too seriously. (Bracing for it now...) --Teratornis 17:15, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Demotion[edit]

You have been demoted from "regular editor" to "janitor". I hope you use the powerz extra buttons for the forces of good and not evil. As if we can tell the difference... humanUser talk:Human 21:04, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

My condolences on the demotion. </RW humour>
In all seriousness, I welcome the addition to the janitorial team. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 21:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT) P.S. you should try blocking Bohdan, it's fun.
In no seriousness, I don't know what to say. My first edit was eleven days ago, I pissed off everybody here, I haven't contributed anything, and I didn't ask to be sysopped. So, what's the record for the shortest tenure for the most irritating user with the fewest substantive contributions who got sysopped without asking for it? And should I now list this honor on my user page on some other wiki, to rankle the community there all the more? --Teratornis 03:24, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
It's not an honor, it's a chore. Check out the header. Oh, and as far as the record, who knows. Probably much shorter. We frequently honor CP sysops who turn up here with janitorship, without warning them... Felicitations on your demotion. humanUser talk:Human 03:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
PS, don't brag about it, but please, block Bohdan for pi minutes or so. Soon. Before he blocks you. humanUser talk:Human 03:31, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
A real roller coaster entrance to RW. I shall watch your career with genuine interest for any other turbulence which may follow. :-) Welcome to the clean up crew. --Bobbing for apples 04:10, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent for the PDA crowd - note my sensitivity to SusanG's request, you bunch of callous wildly indenting louts) Don't brag? Then what's the point? But more importantly, without bragging how does one get any chicks? Are they just supposed to notice that I am now a janitor? No, they're going to keep running off with all the homies who be frontin'. Ah well, I'm used to letdowns. --Teratornis 12:30, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Creation Museum[edit]

You, er, mentioned in some comment that you are literally within bicycling distance of this piece of shit. We have been trying to figure out a way to make an "original" article on the place, mostly involving the idea of one of us going there (that's what we try to do: say things our own way, and add something to the web 2.0 in the process). How would you feel about going there and exploring and reporting here? I don't know what the entry fee is, but I bet we have people who who would proudly subsidize your agony in return for such a report. Gaia knows, I wouldn't want to go there any more than I would want to read metapedia... Let us know, since you are our "man on the scene"! humanUser talk:Human 21:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

(Wow, what are those blue things?) Visiting the Creation Museum is pretty far down on my list of things to do before I die, so barring any serious breakthroughs in Life extension, mortality will probably meet me head-on first. Even with the most optimistic assumptions about life extension technology, maybe the Heat death of the Universe will occur first. However, a concerned citizen did send me some links to someone who already completed this distasteful task and blogged extensively about it. I'll have to dig that up. I know there have been some locally-based responses to the Creation Museum from the thinking minority, perhaps to stop our tech jobs from fleeing to India even faster by showing the world that we're not as backward as we actually are. I might be able to track down someone who has already done the heavy lifting, and get some original material to contribute. I'm not exactly socially connected to any sort of atheist/skeptical community, because as far as I can tell, everybody around here believes in Santa Claus. --Teratornis 03:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Dang, well, I had hoped you might be up to the sacrifice. Anyway, if you're ever up to to it, {{SITENAME}} (in case you forgot where you were) need(ed) a local volunteer. humanUser talk:Human 03:35, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Honestly, I live near enough, but you'd have to pay me big time to go. Because, seriously, who in their right mind would spend an irretrievable day of their life just reading total garbage?? Researcher 03:43, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
I know how you both feel. We need to take up a collection - entrance fee, plus beer or booze money, plus pizza, for you and some friends. Would it be any cheaper if you went together, and we bought you a little panda doll? humanUser talk:Human 04:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent for the PDA crowd) I'm thinking it would take a credible promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife to justify such self-sacrifice. And technological progress may soon remove that particular motivation. I will, however, have to make a point to at least do a ride-by on my next bike ride to Petersburg, so I can say I've seen this affront to reason. There's not much in Petersburg otherwise; usually whatever group I'm riding with won't even stop there. A more logical place to stop is Rabbit Hash, which for the moment has only a dog for mayor to rival the irrationality up the river. --Teratornis 12:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah. I see your determination is weakening. At first you wouldn't go until the heat death of the universe. Now you would go for the mere guarantee of an afterlife with 72 virgins. (Actually I've never understood the 72 virgins thing. I mean are they permanent virgins? Cos that would cause some frustration. And where do they come from?)--Bobbing for apples 12:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
I guess they answer all those questions after you blow yourself up. --Teratornis 13:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
As a Muslim, I'll tell you that I read the "72 virgins" bit as a metaphor for the unending pleasure of Paradise, not some sort of post-mortal whore house. Stile4aly 16:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Darn...i was going to convert.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 16:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Why anyone would set foot in that place I do not understand. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 17:01, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent)Me neither. It's in Kentucky, so 72 virgins would be hard to come by (with a possible loophole). In contrast, I find RationalWiki to be a source of unending pleasure. Thus far, anyway. --Teratornis 18:02, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

apology (2)[edit]

I didn't say it here, on your talk page, yet, but I do want to apologize for my cranky responses to your appearance here on RationalWiki. Any issue I may have had with your style upon arriving was my issue, and not yours. I hope your time here will be productive, informative, and useful, as I suspect you are totally capable of. Thank you, and I'm sorry for any ugliness I provoked. Let us learn together as we build wikis. humanUser talk:Human 00:57, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to apologize for Humans suggestion that you visit the creation museum. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 01:10, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Wait, that a fair challenge!!!! Ugly as the job might be. Wer want one of us to go there and rip them a new one!!! humanUser talk:Human 01:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
But really, the Creation Museum? That's torture beyond imagination. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 01:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
I admit, you're right, it's a sucky assignment. But if it were in my neighborhood and RW offered to cover my costs, I would go, and check it out, and report dutifully! humanUser talk:Human 02:00, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

see below[edit]

(discussion moved to: User talk:Teratornis/Wiki tasks#No subpages in RationalWiki: namespace) --Teratornis 03:00, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Popular pages outside of mainspace[edit]

Say, do you know how to list popular pages outside of the mainspace. That is http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Popularpages does not give the popular pages in Conservapedia, Rationalwiki, Fun, etc. spaces. How to do? VirileSterileyawn! 09:52, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, Special:Popularpages is slightly mistitled. It should really be: Special:Populararticles because it only lists articles rather than pages. (An "article" is a page in the main (default) article namespace, i.e., the namespace without a prefix. The set of "pages" includes articles, talk pages, user pages, template pages, image pages, pages in custom namespaces, etc.) Off the top of my head, I don't know any way to generate a page like Special:Popularpages that sorts pages in other namespaces by number of views, but I certainly agree with you that MediaWiki needs one. Someone might have corrected this painfully obvious oversight by writing an extension. I'll have a look. --Teratornis 12:41, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
It may be possible to do this with DynamicPageList. See:
I'll try an example: list the top ten popular pages in the Conservapedia: namespace. --Teratornis 12:48, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

(undent) The following code:

<DPL>
  namespace      = Conservapedia
  ordermethod    = counter
  order          = descending
  addpagecounter = true
  count          = 10
</DPL>

allegedly should list the ten most popular pages in the Conservapedia: namespace:

Wow, that's pretty cool. --Teratornis 12:57, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, most cool. :-) --Bobbing for apples 13:09, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
I think I see a way to determine which of my user talk pages have most recently received an edit. I will start a new subpage: User:Teratornis/DynamicPageList to document my tortured learning of this interesting extension. --Teratornis 13:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

That's what I wanted--thanks! VirileSterileyawn! 14:12, 25 October 2007 (EDT)