User talk:ZooGuard/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 20 February 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

I replied to you in Talk:Reddit

I would like to know how to get the material into Reddit. Please, respond and work with me on this.—Chbarts (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I've seen that you like to whitewash certain elements of the Atheist Movement.Like it or not, everything has it's flaws.--The Madman (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)The Madman

And I see that you like to jump to conclusions. :)

I'm not trying to "whitewash" anything. I did contribute to the writing of the critical parts of Thunderf00t. And please put new discussions at the bottom of the page.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You should check this out

Jen McCreight--Token Conservative (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Club Random"

Yeah. I'm pretty much fatigued with the DLP, the only good thing about it is that no one is actively fighting it, unlike most of what goes on around here. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this "DLP" of which you speak? - GrantC (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead links project, sweeping through the wiki to provide archived equivalents. Gatsby has been one of the outstanding yeomen of the DLP. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. While my range of knowledge is narrow, it's possible that I could help out with that for any articles falling within said range. - GrantC (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki:2013 Dead Links Project go nuts! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope to live up to Sprocket's description. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated, GrantC. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the link, Sprocket. I will certainly do what I can to help out. The link to the site with the list isn't loading for me. I recall seeing in the Saloon Bar a while back (while I was still lurking) that a web app was created for this (or something of the sort), so I'm unsure whether my Internet connection is being a piss-off, or if I'm just looking in the wrong place. Is the site Nutty listed on that project page still accurate? - GrantC (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Try this link? Be sure to contact Nutty Roux to get an ID so you can sign into the app and check off links as you go. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I got tired of responding to the scads of emails I was getting from the crowd of (4) people who were active, so I wrote a web app to handle was I was doing manually. Took the page on my personal site down.

21:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gatsby. That makes sense, Nutty. I need to add an email address to my profile here (still debating whether I wish to use my personal email or create a new one, since my personal email is also furnished with all of my personal details, including my family name). Once I make that decision tonight I'll send you off an email to request an ID. - GrantC (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that I've left out a crucial part of the description - "try to see what's wrong and fix it". :) I wasn't at my cognitive peak yesterday.

As for the DLP, I must admit I'm a bit annoyed by it - many links got removed without trying to find alternatives or archived copies, and some links with historical significance should have been left, possibly without being formatted as links.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have new messages at User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein

Eugenics

Talk page.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

An open mind, an open window.

As a country-dweller I always shut the window when they're muckspreading. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Rome Viharo

Signature: drama + claims of persecution + sudden influx of new accounts/IPs stirring "controversy" + a Talk page that's a confusing mess. This guy is a giant time suck once he gets loose in a forum. As you may have guessed, this has happened before, in various places on the internet. Advice? Leuders (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In the particular case, I suggest starting by splitting the stuff about him into a separate article - either do it yourself, or ask David1234 to do it. It would be also nice if someone cleaned up the Rupert Sheldrake article, trying not to overstate their case. The coverage of the wikidrama is a bit too much, too.

I also suggest trying to focus the discussion on the article, not on point scoring and settling old scores. David1234 seems to have a bit a problem in that area.... (feeding the troll instead of ignoring them or dissecting them).

As for dealing with the BoNs on that talk page:

If someone claims a particular identity, they should be asked to verify it - e.g. if a BoN claims to be Viharo, Viharo needs to post on some of his known sites "yes, I'm editing RationalWiki as XX.XX.XX.XX".
Until some verification of identity is provided, they should be treated as "identity unknown". Citations of personal authority ("I know X", "I employed X") should be mostly ignored and pointed out as irrelevant.
The same applies if someone decides to pull a "look at how much (anonymous and freshly-registered) users agree with me".--ZooGuard (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Better methinks. Leuders (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Help talk: Manual of style #Typography

When I said “to object”, I asked about substantiated objections. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And I haven't seen any substantial arguments for the change other than typographical OCD. RationalWiki is not Wikipedia, and it's not published in print either.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the first time you have removed a link without paying attention

Yeah, I know. And the worst part of it is that we're stuck with that forever, because the wiki software makes it just about impossible to change content or undo mistakes. If only there were some way to "undo" or rollback "rollback" what users do, or to "edit" pages, instead of having them pretty much carved in stone for all eternity. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember: every time you make an unnecessary edit, the sheds a single tear. (Which is why it's crying all the time.)

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a red herring.

There are a few problems with the errors in particular and with your "delink Wikipedia" activities in general.

Since your edit summaries are not always clear on what exactly is the problem, it's really easy for users who are less experienced or unfamiliar with the exact problem to realise that the error has been an error. In the case of Susan Gerbic, it was really easy to misunderstand the removal of the external links section - note that unlike the internal link, it wasn't reinstated until I did it. In the instance I pointed out on Krej's talk page, the edit summary was more clear, but the user working on the article didn't realize that it was a mistake and made the additional effort to find a link to essentially the same material.
While it's true that reverting a mistake takes very little effort, detecting and identifying it as a mistake is an entirely diffrent matter. One would expect...

Oh, fuck that. I'm not going to waste my time struggling with my English to write a detailed reasoning. Do what you want, I'll just stalk you and revert the shit.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Are you stalking me? Muon-catalyzed fusion isn't cold fusion either -- there is no cold fusion. Now seriously, quit following me around and quit staring at my ass.^{— Unsigned, by: ShorinBJ / talk / contribs} 20:39, 14 November 2013‎ (UTC)

No. I am not stalking you, I'm just patrolling the Recent Changes list.

My edit summary was "nope, not considered a form of "cold fusion"". It takes quite a lot of stretch to talk about inertial confinement fusion in an article on cold fusion, given the fact that the two branches of mainstream, "hot" fusion research are ICF and magnetic confinement.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

hey dude

Seriously man, check out [1]. Don't you think that's fucking hot? I mean, some stupid bitch, kneeling before you, drinking gallons of fresh warm piss? Makes me cum every time. Piss drinking bitches are so fucking cute (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so it was trolling, not spam. My bad. We regularly get spammers registering to create user pages with links to various sites, including porn.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Klop789

Don't bother with him, he's a troll who thinks that posting on wiki talk pages between handfulls of Cheetohs will hasten the revolution. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced legal threats by Paul Randle-Jolliffe‎

I am trying to find someone on RW to take responsibly for a page about me and errors of fact on it, rational fairness is all I want. I realise you are protected by amendments to the US Constitution but I am protected by the Malicious Communications Act in the UK. I have tried engaging, did not work, so I tried funny site vandalism to make a point and been put in the vandal bin so now I have just initiated requests to have your site blocked in the UK but give RW just one more chance. PaulRJ (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

QT-1

I thought the QT-1 quote was cool. Someone was just saying the other day, " I could be so much worse-off than I am. I’m not suicidal." I thought, "This depends on the postulate that life is better than death. From the standpoint of minimizing unhappiness (as opposed to maximizing happiness), death is actually better." Being suicidal is sometimes a precondition to death being brought about earlier, so if you want to never feel unhappy again, then descending into the depths of suicidal ideation could be progress.

Someone could be glad to not be suicidal because he fears being stuck in a situation in which he wants to kill himself but can't (whether because he can't summon the nerve, or because the means are not available, or a combination of both — he would be willing to do it by some means, but not others that are unavailable). However, if one is going about to acquire the means, or has the means and is just hanging around awhile longer to tie up loose ends, being suicidal could actually produce peace of mind, because the person thinks, "The solution to all my problems is at hand; no matter what goes wrong now, the pain can only last a little longer." As Nietzsche put it, "The thought of suicide is a powerful solace: by means of it one gets through many a bad night."

I guess there are also situations in which a person feels suicidal but says "I can't do that to my family/friends/the world." Perhaps it's necessary to more precisely define what counts as suicidal; does it count if you have a million different strong inhibitions to doing it? E.g., if you say, "I would kill myself, but I'm really enjoying my life; I have hardly any worries; I'm doing great things for the world; the future looks bright; I love the people around me; both of my girlfriends are smart, cute, great in the sack, have pleasant personalities and get along with me and each other pretty well; I'm popular in my real-world and online communities; I find a great deal of meaning and pleasurable intellectual stimulation in my work and leisure activities; I'm extremely competent at my job; I'm in a high-demand profession that pays a lot; my investments are having a great return; I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico, etc." does that count as suicidal? But if we don't count that, is it logical to count the person who says, "I would kill myself but the only available means is hanging, and that's a really shitty way to die" since he too is inhibited from doing it? Like I say, it all depends on your postulates. A Dime Kiwi (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian translation help

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but could you tell me what the lyrics to this Bulgarian folk song mean?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

management speak

I had to look at a thesaurus for a good five minutes to find that word. So much wasted time on bad jokes Dowdicus (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it's traditional...

...and the only other options are a religious hymn (Heh.) and the national anthem. (Meh.)

Not that I'm going to visit much during the new year...--ZooGuard (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Who has the keys to the intercom?

You should --- there should be an "intercom" link on the left-hand side, under "Community." If not, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll broadcast a message for you. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the link, but every time I've tried to post anything in the past I've gotten an error. I assumed it was something about user rights.

Anyway, if that thread in the Forum is going to decide anything, it would be nice - indeed, necessary - to somehow notify the whole community about it. That was what I tried to do with the post in the Saloon Bar.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hilton Ratcliffe

I expect you and all other editors to stay on topic. This bio article should be strictly about Hilton Ratcliffe, not Patrick Moore. It obviously needs to be edited down as concise as possible. It needs to factually, simply state what this author is for and against without any libelous namecalling or digressions into hateful trivialities. DSN

And why exactly should me "and all other editors" abide by your ideas about what is on topic and what is not?

If you want your claims about "libel", "defamation" and "namecalling" to be taken seriously, you need to point out exactly what you consider to be libelous, namecalling and hateful in the sentence you have removed for the second time.

And a technical note - new sections go to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. (The "Add topic" tab at the top of the page is useful for that.) Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the new user tips.DSN (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be an established, senior editor. As such, I am already very disappointed in you for your thoroughgoing dishonesty and lack of professionalism in your dealings and communications with me. When you pretend not to notice any derision whatsoever in the remarks against Patrick Moore and Hilton Ratcliffe that I have repeatedly attempted to remove, you have taken a morally indefensible position. You are violating the guidelines of Rational Wiki that you are supposed to be enforcing via your behavior. The purpose of Rational Wiki is not for mentally-ill editors to get their sadistic satisfactions by ridiculing mostly-defenseless authors who merit an entry for whatever reason. Rational Wiki should be a dignified reference, nothing more or less.DSN (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you see the sentence as derogatory to someone. I just don't understand why, and you have repeatedly failed to explain your reasoning despite being prompted at least once. Since you are disappointed in me, I suggest taking your case to Talk:Hilton Ratcliffe to see if it will fare better with other editors. I also suggest you refrain from ascribing motives and mental illness to your opponents - it's more telling about your inner world than theirs.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not an editor who is attacking authors in a personal, invective way or reverting all attempts to remove cheap shots against them. Thus, it cannot possibly indicate anything about my inner world.DSN (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice strawman. That's not what I wrote.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Imposters

Are those the only two? If not, let me know, and I will rename them. Of course, we need to make sure to re-create the accounts to avoid the same trolling imposters re-creating them. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to wait with the moves until they've lost interest - in the meantime, we can just block the accounts and put some warning on the user page.

Morphing, sockpupetting and impersonation have been basically the MO of the person trolling the psychics articles. Which is somewhat ironic, since the original author was also a morpher.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On edits to the To Do List

Yes, we should. Next time, I won't do such a poop like the one I did there. Thanks for correcting me! Faunas (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I nominated you for the Board. Woop-de-doo.

If you wish to protest this nomination, I'd suggest you make your response.--The Madman (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Userpage deletions

I'm curious as to why you deleted a small batch of userpages. ShorinBJ has been around for a while and isn't a spammer. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Check the contents before deletion - all of them had been "de-redded" by PSAL. Redlinked usernames are a pet peeve of his, "de-redding" userpages is a pet peeve of mine. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Micky12

What's wrong with him putting icons into an icon category? It seems harmless, possibly even useful, and he probably spent at least a little bit of time doing all that. Is it necessary to mass revert him?--"Shut up, Brx." 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of those files are already in Category:Portal icons or Category:Portal icons (unused), which is a sub-category of Category:Icons, so his edits in the most cases were pointless. The small number of non-portal icons in the general category got swamped out by the portal icons.

And I'm not mass-reverting him - I'm going through each edit, which will take me a little bit of time doing that. Occassionally, his edits are good (i.e. adding categories to a previously uncategorized file).--ZooGuard (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I, for one, appreciate your contribution. I shall inform Micky12 that his was using categories incorrectly on his talk page incorrectly, if you have not already done so.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)