User talk:Tmtoulouse/Archive6

If you need an immediate response from me e-mail me at ttoulouse@gmail.com otherwise be patient!

Has your mood improved? Bohdan 23:18, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I asked the magic 1/8 ounce of cocaine up there and it said "My sources say no." human^{be in} 23:22, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Uh-oh. No one likes an angry psychologist. Bohdan 23:24, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I went to get a second opinion. It said "My reply is no". Looks likes its official. Tmtoulouse is in a mood. Bohdan 23:26, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Really, it told me the opposite...... Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:29, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

it doesn't respect you, obviously. Bohdan 23:30, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Wait, were you using a liberal or conservative computer to play with teh internets? human^{be in} 23:36, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Magical thinking aside my mood has improved, just watch your step Bohdan or I will pull out the Skinner box. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:38, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

What were you so angry about earlier? Was the verdict "guilty"? Bohdan

Real life has no place in Wiki life, it would get really depressing if they co-mingled. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:26, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Ah yes, I understand. Lets talk about your recent deletion of Cult of reason. What fascist rule allows you to delete it with out "mob" approval? Bohdan

The mob is free to make it again anytime it wants. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:29, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I, as a member of said mob, demand it be restored immediately. And made into a main page featured article. Bohdan 01:30, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I only flinch when I see at least one torch and two pitch forks and at least 3 hands. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:32, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I want it also. Bohdan2 01:33, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

And I. Bohdan3

Friggin' clones, fine have your biddin'. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:37, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

nevermind. That article isn't what I thought it would be. Go ahead and delete it. If your not deleting pages, then I can't call you a fascist. Funny, I thought you completely supported cloning. Bohdan

You can always call me a fascist for deleting your viral asterisks. I support cloning, just not the use of clones to fill out the mob. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:42, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree with them, too, and I'm not them Bohdan4 01:43, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree with them, and I'm a free man Bohdan5 01:44, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree, and there's only one of me Bohdan6 01:45, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I concur, see, I use different words Bohdan7 01:46, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Bohdan8 01:56, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I new the coming zombie plague was just around the corner. I am prepared though, very prepared. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:46, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

That was Bohdan23 creating unauthorized me's. Bohdan17

Doesn't matter who makes the zombies, only that you must destroy the brain to stop them. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:48, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

That's not how you stop zombies! Who told you that crap? Some pseudoscientist, no doubt. Bohdan19

Good thing we didn't call this place SensibleWiki... Bohdan9 01:52, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Please, don't leave me here with Bohdan23. he is the one who created the zombies in the first place. That freak. Bohdan14

Shocking!

I asked your little magic 8 ball if tmtoulouse was an idiot, and it said "Signs point to yes"!!! Bohdan

It obviously doesn't respect you. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:42, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

No "shocking" is the reinforcement I plan to use on your re-education in the Skinner box! But I have under fed my magic 8 ball so it could have some issues with me at the moment. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:43, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Creepy?

Yes.

ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 23:39, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Hey, T, can you try to delete article #1 at http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Lonelypages ? The ampersand makes it rather inoperable. human^{be in} 00:31, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I am God of this realm feel my power and bask in my glory! errr..........sure its done. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:32, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Whats with the purging of HG's work? Bohdan45

I am working through dead-end pages, orphaned pages, and articles that need to move between namespaces. I have "purged" "changed" "moved" over a dozen editors works...why did you pick HG as the one person to ask about? tmtoulouse ^torment 19:34, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Because I have already claimed repeatedly that you are a fascist, and I need to get some proof. But it does seem like you are deleting all of his pages. Last night it was that one we discussed, then eckankar and then you just moved his page into some other obscure namespace. It looks like you are systematically getting rid of all of his work. Bohdan32 19:38, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Confirmation bias and all that, I have been working through many editors works not just HG. The best answers I can provide is that, as you said, you are looking for something so you notice when its HG and not Human, or its also possible that HG had a disproportionate amount of contributions that fall under the categories I am working with. tmtoulouse ^torment 19:45, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know what it was you just deleted, but I want it back. Bohdan 20:16, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

don't worry HoG didnt write it. tmtoulouse ^torment 20:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Its becoming increasingly clear that you must have no Real life. Bohdan35

Overrated. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:09, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't worry, BBBBB35, he has more of a life than I do right now. Hey, T, before you attack my US States articles (my babieeeeez!), remember that people will endlessly link to the state names when commenting on US politics. Hi Bohdan53! human^{be in} 22:15, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Just curious, what are you doing? I want to know how to thwart help you. Bohdan37 22:25, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Cleaning up the site, deleting redirects and changing links around the redirects, moving stuff to better namespaces, ect. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:26, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Just keep B-ing who you are B-ing and you'll B fine, Mr. clone #35! 22:27, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Live!

Mike Malloy is reading a mocking email about CP, re: Alberto. Kewl. human^{be in} 22:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Call in and mention us! :). tmtoulouse ^torment 22:37, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

ID

Shouldn't ID be allcapped as a "pretend philosophy"? Not sure, but challenging you move pending justification. I tend to think of "Intelligent Design" as less of an idea than a brand name... human^{be in} 23:10, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Eh, I think its still an idea, right or wrong its not a proper noun to me...wikipedia seems to agree as well. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:13, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

No prob, just asking. From now on, it's Id. As in "I'd" rather have my head put in a vise and slowly crushed. Wait!!!! They already tried that. No one expected it, though. human^{be in} 23:20, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Contents

I added a plain link spanclass to the "Amusement" title in the contents template to remove the arrow (it made it stand out from the others). However, that doesn't seem to have affected the main page. Do you know why/can you fix it? Quiet, Hobby^Quiet! 19:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, there are "two" one for the main page that only shows a random max of 3 articles, and then the one for TOC which shows them all, any changes have to be made to both. But thanks for that, I didn't know how to do that actually, that will come in handy. tmtoulouse ^torment 19:56, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

O'Leary really got you guys good! I feel kind of bad for you, but not really. Bohdan47 23:48, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Your joking right? She quotes our introductory paragraph and ignored any of our more detailed points, and didn't touch any of the research that shows why she is full of crap. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:50, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I was actually talking about this and your Non-materialist neuroscience article. Bohdan36 23:56, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

So was I, she mostly complained that I called her a parasite and referred to it as a reactionary movement, she didn't address any of the science at all behind the article. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:57, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Come on, admit it. You got schooled! Bohdan24 23:59, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Right....again, she didn't address a single point on the science end of it, all she had to bitch about were the snarky comments. She can't address the science, and as long as she can't address the science we will continue to win. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:03, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Its the same thing as when Newtown refuses to talk about the incontrovertible evidence of common descent because its not optimized for a google ranking. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:05, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Whatever. You do realize that those snarky comments really don't help you? In fact they harm your cause. Bohdan 00:07, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Depends who you ask, did you think that O'Leary referring to our site as ratwiki harmed her cause? I don't see you complaining about her tactics. Rhetoric is fun and fine, as long as the argument can extend beyond the rhetoric, and at this point O'Leary only seems to want to argue rhetoric. When she decides to argue science then there might be something. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:10, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I did not consider ratwiki to be a snarky comment along the lines of refering to someone as a parasite. I have used Ratwiki before because it is short and catchy. If it offends you so much I will stop and spell out the full word "RationalWiki". Bohdan12 00:12, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't offend me in the lease, merely point out an apparent double standard on your part. She can call me whatever she wants, and I will feel free to call her whatever I want. In the mean time the point remains that she did not address any of the science or evidence behind the article so no "schooling" occurred. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:16, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, things aren't always as they appear. And really, I don't factor into this. My original comment had nothing to do with her comments or the comments of anyone else except your site. Rational people are not usually impressed when someone refers to his or her opponents as parasites. So, you really found her adressing no science? Bohdan12 00:21, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

While the article remains unfinished there were several areas she could have attacked that would be legitimate, the first was where I pointed out logical and scientific fallacies in Egnor and Beauregard's logic, the second would be in the still developing but still not insubstantial section on the scientific evidence for materialism. I don't think she got further than two paragraphs into the article. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:23, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Wait, are you admitting that your article is weak? Bohdan

Read closer. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:25, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I re-read. Do you admit that your point about the logical and scientific fallacies in Egnor and Beauregard's logic is weak? Bohdan53 00:27, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

By "legitimate" I mean that it would be something I would be willing to take seriously, rather than silly pot shots at whether I used the term "co-author" correctly. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:28, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

So you found no legitimate criticisms in her article? Bohdan17

Apparently I used the term co-author wrong, and need to expand upon the history section a bit, she also gave me a few more names to look up. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:34, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Are you still going to be using snarly comments in your articles? Bohdan 00:37, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, cause its fun, though I do not rely on them for my arguments. And O'Leary really is a parasite, have you watched her in action? tmtoulouse ^torment 00:39, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

It seems you sometimes do rely on them for your arguments. You'll still use them even after all we have been over? Shame on you! It may be "fun", but it makes you, and by association your argument, look bad. And no, I have not seen her in action. Bohdan23

Again, it depends who you ask, like I said you didn't seem to mind any of her snarky comments about our site when saying she "schooled" us. Rhetoric has its place, and I am not inclined to remove them. Now this is a wiki of course, and I do not "own" the article. Others are free to go in and re-write whatever they want. That includes you, whether the new version stays or not depends on how much better or worse the revision is. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:46, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Like I said, I failed to see the snarkiness of her comments. But I really don't care if she "schooled" you or not, I am just trolling. To be honest, you're right she didn't really talk about the science enough. Bohdan53

I will exchange a moment of honesty with another moment of honesty, another reader whose opinion I probably value more than just about any other persons on this planet agreed that I was too "harsh." I want to finish the article first, and then I will go back and review my rhetoric and see if it needs to be downplayed. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:51, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Given that you started this article a month and a half ago and still seem no where near being finished, I would remove the the rhetoric now. Just curious, was this reader you value Goateater? Bohdan32

I am motivated to finish it now, I will pull out Zotero and get to work on it tomorrow. And no said reader is not a memeber of RW, though I have tried to recruit her...she is not really the wiki editing type I guess. I am working on it. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:03, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, given your record on saying you are going to do things and actually getting them done, I don't put much stock in her ever joining. W O W. That was certainly a trollish, insulting post, wasn't it? If you are still on you should block me. Bohdan14

Ouch. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:22, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I think I am just going to cry myself to sleep now. tmtoulouse ^torment 01:23, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, my work here is done. Once again, success! Bohdan27

I saw that convo with TK... you are a susckorz, I blocked you for 314159 billion frickin' years for being an undercoever CP sysop!!!!!!!!!! Of course, any of us will undo it upon request. Whodathunkit? human^{be in} 02:20, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

custom edit buttons

I want custom edit buttons, I'm sick of typing DEFAULTSORT and welcome/IP and category and ==References==<references/>. I'm also too lazy to add them to an easy to open file for copying from. Does the MW software support the creation of one's own "magic editing button" toolbar? human^{be in} 17:59, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Supposedly...I will investigate it. tmtoulouse ^torment 18:01, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

?

Another day has gone by and still no edits to Non-materialist neuroscience . Sigh Bohdan

Days not over yet! tmtoulouse ^torment 18:09, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I reverted your edit because, quite frankly, it sucked. You have to do better if you don't want that lady to school you. Bohdan

She is Canadian. tmtoulouse ^torment 21:19, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

O'Leary is Canadian? Bohdan

Yep, she lives a mere 60 km away from me. I should invite her out for tea and poutine. tmtoulouse ^torment 21:27, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Warning

You have been making many edits to articles that a least one other RationalWiki user is unhappy with.

It may or may not be felt that your edits constitute .

Please stop.

Please do not make further edits to article pages until the matter has been resolved. You can discuss this here on your talk page.

If you persist in making similar edits to article pages or edits that are felt to be , you may be blocked under the block policy.

Sweet. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:08, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

input wanted

Over at Talk:Disproving_Creationism#Article_Name we have been discussing better titles for this group of articles. Any input would be appreciated, also, if you can think of any other editors who we should have involved, pass it on. Thanks! human^{be in} 16:41, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe you might already know my opinion, but for those of you who don't: I hate Human's plan. Bohdan 18:00, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

You're so boring, writing about "thinking" when we're having fun! I insist you block Human for perverting the English language, faking signature timestamps, and editing TrashionalWiki - right now! Bohdan67 22:18, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Why?

Why did you block me? I am seriously really angry. You screwed up the whole wiki, and now I can't log back in. I am going to recommend your removal from this wiki project. Human2 22:50, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I didn't block you I blocked Human. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:54, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I think human2 is human's sock. he is angry that your block srewed up the wiki. Bohdan

Tsk Tsk Bohdan, did you forget that I have omnipotent powers at RW? tmtoulouse ^torment 22:56, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Not for long you don't. Bohdan

Why are you going to build a rock I can not lift? tmtoulouse ^torment 22:58, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

In English, please try to use the single word, "cannot". 23:11, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Human is going to reomve you. Bohdan

I am more powerful than Human. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:01, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Before you're removed, will you block all of these imposters? Bohdan 22:57, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Nah. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:58, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Why not? Are you not as powerful as you claim? Bohdan

I don't even block spammers. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:01, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

If you truly are more powerful than Human, you will block him for ten years. Bohdan

Isn't there you know something about not tempting those with omnipotent powers? tmtoulouse ^torment 23:03, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I doubt your powers. I think you are lying. Now stop trying to weasle out of this. Block him for ten years. Bohdan

• I demand you make me a temporary sysop. I have proven myself disruptive enough for the job. I want the position for ten minutes. Bohdan2 23:08, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
  • I demand you make me s sysop. I have proven my skills and care about this site! Bohdan17 23:11, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

That was fun. Will you unblock my original account and my 2nd one? Bohdan3

Yeah, me, too. And make me a sysop! Bohdan53 23:33, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Non-materialist neuroscience

Yesterday I put the following comment on the Non-materialist neuroscience article: "The section "Drug manipulation, surgery, and injury" Has this second sentence: "While powerfully suggest direct manipulation of brain structures is needed to demonstrate causation." While I can make a stab at making it make more sense, I can't do so while keeping the rest of the paragraph coherent. Any ideas?" (I should have written third sentence). Anyway, it doesn't seem to have been picked up on and, as principal author, I thought you might lake the heads up. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I tried my hand at fixing it up a bit, hopefully that makes it clearer. tmtoulouse ^torment 13:55, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, great. --Bob_M (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Category Work

I'm busying myself with categories again. But I've just realised an issue - twice now, I have recat'd stuff, and once all the articles are moved over to the new cat, the old cat 'disappears'. Today's example is the former cat 'Copies of spoofs on Conservapedia', which I relegated to the dustbin by moving everything to 'Conservapedia spoofs'. But I'm guessing the cat page for the old cat is actually still there? Where is it? I can't seem to see it as an orphaned page? Should it be deleted, and how should I handle these in future? Ta. DogP 12:30, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I just moved the discussion from the old to cat to the new cat, then deleted all the content. Apparently though, just removing all content from a page isn't enough to make it disappear, so you should still do that. If you can't get to the cat, check the recent changes. I think standard procedure is to just move the discussion page, then delete. Thunderkatz^Ho! 12:38, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

This is it

Last night Human made me a bureaucrat. In exactly one minute, I am going to de-sysop you and block you forever with the reason being: "wheeee". Do you have any last words? Bohdan 17:39, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Wheeeee tmtoulouse ^torment 17:40, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Out of curiosity, is that sock yours? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 13:54, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Mine? Nah I haven't made any socks in a long time. tmtoulouse ^torment 13:54, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Tell Human to stop making socks of Bohdan (me). Block all the Bohdans except the original and the 2nd. Tmtоulouse 14:09, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Well? Are you going to block all of the socks or not. Bohdan

Only as an absolutely last possible resort to massive disruption of the site. We use blocking VERY sparingly here, even for spam bots. I rather wait and see how it plays out, I think the "joke" is getting old and it will naturally go away on its own. tmtoulouse ^torment 13:44, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

This was never a joke. I demand that you block these sock puppets, as they are distracting me from making quality contributions to this site. Bohdan

What was distracting you before? human^{be in} 17:07, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

My theory is that they are the real Bohdans and you are the sock... tmtoulouse ^torment 13:46, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Nonsense. How is that possible? I was here first. You have to block the one who changed the letter "a" into a different a so his name is exactly like mine. There should be a rule against that. Bohdan 13:48, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

The trouble is, 1. there is no rule against it, and, 2. if we made one, we'd also have to decide what to about ex post facto rules - are previous socks grandfathered (not sure if a clone can have a grandfather, but...)? human^{be in} 17:07, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Hello? HELLO?? Are you going to block the user? [1] Bohdɑn

Don't do it, Tmt! He's trying to get you to make an infinite block, so we can no longer claim that we don't ban (our only current ban expires in one minutes' time)! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!} 16:51, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

He can't keep away, despite telling TK that he was going to leave here and start making constructive edits at CP. Reel him in! Genghis Khant 16:55, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Last Last

The intro on "recent pages" looks like this:

Below are the last 50 changes in the last last 7 days, as of 22:44, 4 September 2007.

You will notice the stutter 'last' - it's similar on watchlist canst do aught for it? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 16:51, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I am sure there is...........but I can't figure out how...... tmtoulouse ^torment 17:11, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I checked out the mediawiki page for it, but, unlike CP, we don't seem to have one. LINUS? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Page for what? Recentchangestext? That won't change this particular chunk of text. tmtoulouse ^torment 17:15, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Y'know, the one that Andy's always editing. Also, Mediawiki isn't particularly elucidating - although I learnt a great deal about obselete wiki stuff. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Thats the recentchangestext file and will add text to recent changes but doesn't actually change this bit of bit of text in question. tmtoulouse ^torment 17:20, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I see you have now noticed my brilliant vandalism. Have fun trying to fix that! Bohdan 17:21, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

To prove your alleged skillzorz, how about changing it to "next to last"? human^{be in} 18:52, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

If the socks get blocked, I will change it to whatever you want. Bohdan

An empty promise, since you haven't proved the ability. To claim the ability, you must predict its outcome, or do perform a controlled test upon request. human^{be in} 19:06, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

request

Seriously, you have ignored this request long enough. Are you going to delete all of the sock accounts? Bohdan

No, they will stop being used eventually. tmtoulouse ^torment 18:48, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure, you have a record of being correct on matters such as these don't you? Just block them! Bohdan

Why does this bug you so much? It's not like they've invaded CP.... yet..... Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:02, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

"Maniacal Laughter". I better go change my "no socks" UXB until it gets banned... human^{be in} 19:09, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Buahahahahaha...... and you got welcomed.... bravo. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:16, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

And not just by some innocent dewy-eyed homskollar, either! By Mr. Schlafly himself! Considering I don't care to do any editing except under my friend and Master Bohdan's direction, it will be interesting to see how long poor Nadhob survives. Maybe Bohdan will have Ed put together a writing plan? human^{be in} 19:25, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Who created that sock? Bohdan

Me, silly. Your only friend in the world. Better get someone to ban 24.0.0.0/256 or I might try it again, I like hanging out with my Master at his house! human^{be in} 20:42, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Nitpick: Judging by the IP, I think you mean /8, which isn't possible (unless CP patched the software). --Sid 20:46, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't know how to do those IP blocks. Bohdan

Conservapedia:IP blocks - a handy introduction; check the reference links for official manuals. --Sid 20:54, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I bet Kookajou drools over blocking over 16 million IP's at a time.CЯacke® 20:50, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

It was a wildass guess, I musta got it backwards which way the 2's increment. Yah, that's what I meant, I think. Basically it would help them if they simply blocked comcast.com's ranges. Maybe 24.128.0.0/16? Seems too narrow to me, a vandal, or worse yet, an FOB, might slip through. human^{be in} 20:51, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the system is a bit counter-intuitive, but hey, they could use multiple /16s for you! --Sid 20:54, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

stop

Please, stop acting like a woman. Block the socks, dang it! Bohdan

There is a lot of other sysops you could be appealing to other than me. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:43, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I appealed to Human, and he refused. You and him are the only real sysops. I would ask GodlessLiberal, but he is not a sysop anymore. Who else would I ask? Bohdan

• A. I'm a sysop.
• B. No.

Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:49, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

People here. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:50, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

The majority of those people are either lunatics, or never active. Will you do it or not? Bohdan

Hey, what is "Oversight"? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:53, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Something only the "special" users get. Bohdan

Bohdan, with out evidence of substantial disruption to the site I am not going to block anyone. I don't even block spam bots, I would if they were a recurrent one, but a one time bot post doesn't merit a block here. I have not seen the socks causing a problem. Pinto, oversight allows someone to completely erase an edit from the site so it wont even appear as a diff. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:56, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I get it. Your content to let your authority get trampled. I will never let this issue go! You will block those socks! Bohdan

I have no authority. tmtoulouse ^torment 23:00, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Lets face it. There is going to be a battle between you and Human for control of this wiki. As an experienced vandal/troll, my support will be crucial. I am willing to throw my support to you if you block the socks. What do you say? Bohdan

I wouldn't be surprised if Human were TK. CriticalMass 23:03, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

That would be strange. Bohdan

There can be only one!!!!!!!11!!11!1!!!1

start

Please, act like a man. Sock the blocks, darn it! ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs} (Smoke crack)

I agree. ^{— Unsigned, by: CriticalMass / talk / contribs} 22:46, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

RationalWiki:DysLexicon#B Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:58, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm.... I'm famous! Bohdan

i wonder bohdan....if CP knows what a double agent you really are under all the joking cover? do they know you are actually a sysop here, using a sock name? does robs know you are letting socks of human, tmtoulouse and others remain doing their paroody thing, making subtle, destructive edits? i wonder what tk and karajuu would think? i really wonder. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk

The above was a forgery by (IP 75.126.146.18) Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 00:34, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I am a sysop here? Bohdan

Susan, they would probably casterate themselves. 23:12, 4 September 2007 (CDT) ^{— Unsigned, by: CriticalMidget / talk / contribs}

Actually, Bohdan and a sock or two of his have been made sysops several times. human^{be in} 00:20, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

But did he think to share any of the checkusers files with his buddies at CP? Nah, Good ol' Bodhan's on OUR side. CЯacke® 00:26, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

He turned me into a newt(on)! human^{be in} 00:32, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Bloody hell people

I am not Aschlafly take your conversations to some place that won't make a little "new message" banner appear on my screen every 5 minutes! Anyway....good night everyone. tmtoulouse ^torment 00:35, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, go make a mess of my talk page. I get a little thrill every time I see that orange banner ("Friends! I have friends!"), and it's almost due for archiving, anyway. human^{be in} 00:39, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Newt's Unblocking

AArgh, you took my block. Those are fun.

Eh, I'll go block Bohdan. That should do.--Offeep 14:52, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

block all you want but keep them under an hour unless its something like repeated unfunny vandalism. tmtoulouse ^torment 14:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Or not...I mean block for whatever you want, I am not issuing an order or anything. Its just I wont unblock something thats less than an hour..but may for more than an hour. tmtoulouse ^torment 14:56, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, don't worry. I'm not that mean.--Offeep 14:57, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I see Bohdan has become the official Rationalwiki whipping boy, eh? DickTurpis 14:58, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Um, no, Bohdan actually likes being blocked, and is very proud of his rather long block history. The only time he gets whipped is when we get ahead of his wandalism ideas. In Soviet Russia, you pwn Bohdan! human^{be in} 15:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

shits and giggles

http://tfootitt.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/response-to-what-is-alternative-medicine-anyway/#comment-1640

Thanks for the back up. My favorite part is where they say "For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary."--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 20:13, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yea, thats pretty bad. I have been struggling with this a lot lately. I had a 2 hour argument with a friend who is convinced that the Law of Attraction stuff is real. I tried asking her what was the evidence that lead her to believe it...and she responded by saying "you are making this more complicated than it needs to be, its just a belief, you don't need evidence for a belief." Whats the common language here? Where is the shared position that can begin a dialog?? As I said on your blog, "I do it because it feels good" is fine, I will give them that subjective...but they always want to add the "and it works" at the end. The moment they do it, science comes into to play.....but somehow they think "and it works" should be just as valid a subjective claim as "it feels good." I don't know how to get past that barrier. I guess its a selection bias thing....those that realize they need to start looking at it from the stand point of evidence are the ones that no longer believe crazy shit...... tmtoulouse ^torment 20:20, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

This is why i am sure our brains are hard-wired (accidentally) for religion. Religion and woo are the same thing--exactly, both cognitively and logically.--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 20:23, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

It might simply have been a survival trait when we were "learning to think" (I mean evolving those last few steps, say). Or, it's almost the same as hard-wiring if we teach it to all our young when they's very little. Real hard wiring would be much harder to overcome. Then learning "not to believe" would be as hard as learning "not to hear". Either way, we will probably "know" soon (with 95% certainty!), although the believers simply won't "accept" the knowledge. They'll ignore it and keep thumpin' theyse good books. And other woo. human^{be in} 20:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

But is it religion per se? A lot of the woo and crank stuff thats out there is different than religion, though the belief structure and defensive system is the same....I think there must be some sort of algorithm in the brain that once an idea gets stuck in that slot its hard to get it out. Even very rational people can have that one "soft spot" that they get stuck in. Its probably intimately related to the differential costs between a "false positive" and a "miss" in terms of evolution............does all of this come down to a complicated signal detection theory algorithm? Machinations.... tmtoulouse ^torment 20:47, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Erm, who was your last comment directed to? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 21:02, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't know...everyone I guess. tmtoulouse ^torment 21:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I was talking about the one on that blog, fyi. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:02, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

No, it's not religion per se. Religion is the fancier version built on the human susceptibility to woo. Woo + power = religion. human^{be in} 22:19, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Is it because we're wired to trust authority? "Don't go over there you'll get eaten by lions" but not necessarily to identify correct authority? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:25, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't know about authority.............some information we are naturally inclined to take from anyone, even perfect strangers. Signals of fear and disgust will translate across cultures and across class boundaries. If someone eats something and makes a disgust face you are not going to go over and eat it no matter who that person was. Same with fear. Other signals involving reward might translate as well too..........religion does seem to tap into those kinds of signals..........I don't know my signal/noise ratio is getting screwy....I have to go teach undergrads tomorrow in the morning........damn. tmtoulouse ^torment 22:29, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Blocking spam/pr0n bots

how long do we block them for? For something like this?-αmεσ (!) 22:08, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I think we tend to go for more like a month. They never come back anyway... human^{be in} 22:31, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I blocked a repeat spammer (rookeryrook or some such) for a mere 3 days earlier today; 31 days next time (pi series). Infinite sems a bit ... Er ... Infinite? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:36, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Hehe, I like your "pi series" - it adds up in a hurry! human^{be in} 22:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)