Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Lumenos"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Please Stop)
(Please Stop)
Line 200: Line 200:
 
::::::I would add that this whole fucking edit war or whatever between Lumenos, Human, P-Foster et al has to stop. It's just getting petty. {{User:Gooniepunk2010/sig|}} 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::I would add that this whole fucking edit war or whatever between Lumenos, Human, P-Foster et al has to stop. It's just getting petty. {{User:Gooniepunk2010/sig|}} 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::Based on this comment I will probably quote things and post to Lumeniki, rather than at RationalWiki. [[User:Lumenos|~ Lumenos]] ([[User talk:Lumenos|talk]]) 05:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::Based on this comment I will probably quote things and post to Lumeniki, rather than at RationalWiki. [[User:Lumenos|~ Lumenos]] ([[User talk:Lumenos|talk]]) 05:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::thanks. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>i9</sup>]] 05:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== Pibot ==
 
== Pibot ==

Revision as of 05:49, 1 July 2010

I may be easier to reach at my Lumeniki talk page. Where I don't have to worry about edit conflicts (since no-one else edits that wiki, though it seems you've managed to edit conflict yourself), I don't have to check the edit history to see if some anal nerd slipped in some wandalism before I post (I wouldn't let my guard down so easily), it is easier to see the whole page (for you maybe, not for anyone else), and I can move things to subpages to avoid these sorts of problems (and create hundreds more). ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC) (other ededtor is me speshal frend Special:Contributions/89.132.239.149 (:sic:) )




This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>

Copyright

Moved content of this section to archive 1, now I will "quote" and comment on it here.

"[The material in this section] is based on a copy of [the talk page you are probably reading,] at RationalWiki. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify [this section] under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version. A complete copy of the license can be read at Creative Commons Legal Code." -- (Suggested by Human and seconded by Bob. Bracketed text by Lumenos.)

Is this satisfactory? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically, sure, except your second bracketed insertion doesn't make much sense. Whatever. The main is to 1. mention the copyright (CC BY SA), link to the source, and link to the CC BY SA pages. As long as all three are done properly, you're fine. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand what I'm "proposing" (it is kinda snarky). Here is an example http://lumeniki.referata.com/w/index.php?title=User:Lumenos/Debate_Map:Measuring_consensus&oldid=4227. ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When I am quoting people at RationalWiki

Do you want me to preface it with that quote there? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't want you to quote us at all. Forking discussion onto a dozen different pages on two wikis makes them impossible to follow. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
How am I to know how many people you represent? ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Community standards

There is a copy in the community standards arXve. By the way, the rule for archives is DO NOT EDIT. Just to be clear. - π 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was a copy there. The section title was left or brought back out, when I edited it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

That Lumenos be treated as a Concern troll. (S)He apparently has our benefit at heart but is totally unable to express her/himself in a manner which is understandable to the majority. Her/His use of multiple pages in her/his user (& user:talk) spaces is at least confusing and at worst disruptive of any coherent discourse. Her/His unfamiliarity with RW rules on interfering with "talk" comments and apparent disdain for our community standards is distracting and contrary to RW's modus operandi. 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Isn't a concern troll someone who is only pretending to care about your benefit or something? I'm not so much worried about "your benefit", but rather the philosophical truth and the mission of this wiki. Could you be a concern troll, without knowing it?
I don't recall having any problem with the "Community Standards" page, since it was altered to remove the prohibition against linking to white racist sites. What "community standards" do you think that I disdain?
What talk comment did I "interfere with"?
Where can I see your rules on talk comments, and who supports these? Do you realize this is exactly the problem I was addressing? That the Community Standards page does not reflect many of the the community standards.
~ Lumenos (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Newcomers#What_can_I_do_with_my_user_page.3F 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I read it. I don't know how I have broken any of those rules exactly. If anything I corrected the indentation from when Human moved my comment. ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
He is a troll, he likes to argue with people. Stop feeding him. He will continue to annoy you for a while, then he'll copy over stuff to his wiki and continue to "argue" with you there (liberal last wordism?), and you'll be rid of him. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
When I did what? Lumenos is a clueless drifter, and I think Susan might be correct. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, when we were editing on the community standards talk page, I created a section and you deleted this section and indented the comment. Do you remember that? ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Diff please. - π 11:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking for it, but I'm not sure someone hasn't removed it from my view. How many users here are able to do this? Apparently Nx has similar powers to edit the database, and he acts like he hates me after the WikiIndex incident. ~ Lumenos (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Fuck you are paranoid. If you remove an edit it leaves a place card saying here is a deleted edit. - π 12:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know you and I don't know how this wiki is run. When you wrote that you read the entire archive of the community standards talk page and made it sound like this is to be expected (I don't know if you're serious) but that seems kinda obsessed with this wiki. Would it be horribly scandalous if the powers that be completely removed something from edit histories? I often wonder if some of your "trolls" are people like Nx (who says he is a troll on his user page now). Does he get the concern troll treatment, whatever that is? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised a) that it happened - Human gets away with a lot; b) that you can't find it - you've made so many damn stupid edits on so many damn stupid pages. Nx =/= troll: he's done some fucking really useful things here - name one that you've done. 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Why don't we ask CP how "productive" RW editors have been to them? I wasn't being critical of Nx for being a "troll", I thought more that he was ridiculing the crabbs. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
He thinks Human altered one of his edits and then used show/hide to hide it from him. - π 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
er ... Bollocks! 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He thinks I think Human altered one of his edits and then used show/hide to hide it from him. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes no sense. I was referring to you in the third person, so you should change the references to yourself to be in the first. Is English your first language? - π 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. You made sense of it. I start to get sloppy when we are not arguing about something that seemed important and this page is so cluttered, I don't know who would want to read it. Maybe for others it is much more interesting than the debate map. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I for one would be pissed if someone completely removed an edit for no good reason. You have been here discussing policy for over a week now, you must be gaining some insight into how it is run. We aim for as few rules and regulations as possible and have an open editing ethos. We also leave talkpages as untampered as possible, nut recently we have had a trolling problem and it is now generally excepted that you may remove a comment if it is excessively vulgar and attacking a person. - π 13:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen many of the edits that have been deleted. You know what goes on, I think. It must be difficult when a wiki is founded by "trolls", then they want to get rid of the people who clutter up talk pages with their stupid opinions. ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Are we talking about the comments which are attacking another editor or actual deletions? - π 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Marcus or whoever posted that thing on my talk page and it was reverted. It wasn't attacking me. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
He's not been discussing anything. He's been rambling away incomprehensibly. 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
The bit that annoys me is I explained the "rules" really succinctly at the top of this page and he is still confused. He seems to be under the impression that there is some big set of rules being hidden from him, rather than following the above 4 points through to their conclusion. - π 13:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the few posts here that I felt had much merit. I replied here (maybe an hour ago): User_talk:Lumenos/Debate_Map:Measuring_consensus#Π's rules ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this a variant of the Gish gallop? 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Possibly, if you suggest a good name I'll create a fun article on it, or take it to RationalWikiWiki. - π 12:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Lumenos labefactation. - π 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Lumenous latrant. - π 12:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Distraction:
picking on a minor point and thus distracting from the main thrust. 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
It has to be an alliteration. - π 12:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Concern troll"

Approximate quote of Susan G "A proposal: That Lumenos be treated as a Concern troll. (S)He apparently has our benefit at heart but is totally unable to express her/himself in a manner which is understandable to the majority. Her/His use of multiple pages in her/his user (& user:talk) spaces is at least confusing and at worst disruptive of any coherent discourse. Her/His unfamiliarity with RW rules on interfering with "talk" comments and apparent disdain for our community standards is distracting and contrary to RW's modus operandi. 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)"

What is your current proposal SusanG? How should "concern trolls" be treated if they are not "useful" like Nx? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lumenous, just relax. Enjoy RationalWiki. Go to WIGO CP or the Saloon bar. Engage in normal conversation with people, without creating a "debate map" of the conversation. Find a clog post and put it on clogosphere. Find an article on a topic you are interested in and contribute to it. You are rubbing people the wrong way with these meta-discussions. Leave them for a while. - π 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Take pi's advice, Lummy. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See this is what I am talking about, you are moving the conversation about again, it is very frustrating for someone trying to talk with you. Use "Wikipedia conventions" like everyone else. - π 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean quoting? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's ever complained at Wikipedia. When I was talking about a "Wikipedia convention" I meant that comments are to only be on talk pages. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Why the fuck do you have to create a new section instead of replying in the one directly above this one? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to if it is so horribly offensive, threatening, or "disorganized". I didn't find any rule against quoting people and I wanted to focus on just one statement. Perhaps I am more inclined to ignore edits that I might be tempted to call "crabbish" just because they don't do much for me. Now I guess my talk page has become a sort of sympathetic debate crap of the RationalWiki mafia. So be it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually now that I look it over, I've already replied to just about everything that I could understand. At the end I wasn't sure if they are intentionally eeearrruum "committing" the Gish gallop, or if they think I am. But now I have somebody to talk to and so this is normal, not crazy talking to myself stuff using weird words most the world would think was a little weird. (:sic:) (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Starting afresh

Look I don't dislike you and I don't mind you editing here. What annoys me is you are proposing changes to the wiki without knowing how it is run. There is a fair bit of history to this place, a lot of it goes back to the days when most of the founding editors were on Conservapedia. As a result when they founded this wiki they tried to correct for some of the problems they encountered there. Some of their initial ideas are treated as sacrosanct. A lot of the "rules" are built on precedents. My advice to you is learn the landscape better before diving into the big stuff. I don't think I made a comment on site policy for the first six months I was here. You don't have to wait that long, but proposing stuff when you don't know the every day workings is going to rub people the wrong way. If you have a good editing record to your name people are more willing to listen to your ideas and opinions. - π 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your history goes back further than that. Conservapedia is an offshoot of Wikipedia. So many RationalWikians went into WikiIndex and demanded that they follow Wikipedian conventions, like commenting only on talk pages. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You're a definite nutter, Lumenos. If you don't like it here why not EFF OFF? 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
If you want him to eff off, then STOP FEEDING THE TROLL 89.132.239.149 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I do what I like. I like trying to talk sense into you, and learning from you (or others, haven't actually learned anything from you yet). I have a proposal. Why don't we call everyone who calls someone a "troll" and then argues with them, crabs! Are you with me IP address? Couldn't we add a little to this mythology? It is always the same boring word. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC)x2 Commenting only on talkpages? That is what they are for, it is not a Wikipedia convention it is a wiki convention since the late 90s. That is why there are two pages; the article - for the article - and the talk - for the talk. That is how the software is built. - π 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is probably a MediaWiki convention, but lets face it, wikis are often just a bunch of comments with no sources. Wouldn't you think it might improve CP if certain people could comment in the articles? ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really, it would be a mess. The article is the thing you show people to read, the talkpage is where it is discussed. If you want an article with comments on it, that is called a blog. - π 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Bletch! Blogs are for wanks who need to approve every comment and keep them in a neatly disorganized list.
You need more than two pages, if you are going to make those revamps work. People need a place to "vent garbage". ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is no more an offshoot of Wikipedia than cottage cheese is an offshoot of Stilton.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[Eearrrm now pii was trying to start fresh there]

Go here to see why Lumenos should be considered a selfidiotroll (a neologism of Lumenos SusanG to describe a self obsessed troll who is also an idiot) 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

This is friendliness? You are the first person to acknowledge Lumenos' manifesto. For someone who was pretending to want to ignore me, you are a bit confusing. I think Nx was the first new lumenati to employ the lumenist convention of creating neologisms for jeezes. May have been Human. Human is so proficient in it now days, he never names me or my ideas the same thing twice; constantly updating jeezes as the perception changes. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
But he wasn't having much success (with the fresh start) was he: you just ramble on incomprehensibly. 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I am unfortunately unable to determine if you actually don't think I am making sense. Were it not that so many other people say so. I don't know if all you are being serious or not. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Do what you want*. I'm done with you. You are a complete idiot.
*EXCEPTION: DON'T alter any pages in RationalWiki namespace without discussing (and receiving general approval) on the appropriate talk page first. This includes creating any sub-pages in any namespace except your own User & User:talk. 15:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Did you actually think telling someone they are an idiot a million times was going to solve something? You fancy you are not a troll yourself? ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What I learned from SusanG

"This material is based on a copy of this page you are reading at RationalWiki. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version. A complete copy of the license can be read at Creative Commons Legal Code." -- Human (secunded by Bob)

I take it back, I did learn something from SusanG. This was copied from above:

"I don't know you and I don't know how this wiki is run. When you wrote that you read the entire archive of the community standards talk page and made it sound like this is to be expected (I don't know if you're serious) but that seems kinda obsessed with this wiki. Would it be horribly scandalous if the powers that be completely removed something from edit histories? I often wonder if some of your "trolls" are people like Nx (who says he is a troll on his user page now). Does he get the concern troll treatment, whatever that is? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised a) that it happened - Human gets away with a lot; b) that you can't find it - you've made so many damn stupid edits on so many damn stupid pages. Nx =/= troll: he's done some fucking really useful things here - name one that you've done. 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast"
You seem to think I'm being critical of Nx when I say that. I thought maybe he meant that there was a lot of hypocrisy here surrounding the calling of the people "trolls". If you called yourself a troll, would you think that would be a term of derision? ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry so sloppy, but at least this interesting comment is not only buried in an uninteresting section. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cutting sections to make them easier to edit

Special:Contributions/89.132.239.149 doesn't like when I do this. Anyone else have an opinion? ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tiresome. What we do to make adding to long sections easier is add subsections, usually called things like "handy edit button". Making a new top-level header to continue a recent conversation really mucks up the flow. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. But sometimes it appears to be a completely new topic. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
But the one you did above wasn't a "new topic", it was replying to/discussing the exact topic of the thread you chopped it off of. Our convention here is simple: to make a really long thread/topic easier to edit, we add sub-headers so the whole topic remains under one == level header. Capiche? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Eeeaaarruum perhaps a different subtopic, Sir? You've got it now though. That is basically what you might call a sympathetic debate crap. Enforcing topically according to your perception or preference. If we were both to agree on the topics, that would be one requirement of a multiview debate map. ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page not your property

..don't remove stuff from it, unless to archive. Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"the rule for archives is DO NOT EDIT. Just to be clear. - π 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)"

You have to edit it to put things in it, obviously. I put something in there after I already had things in it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
They can be edited for archiving purposes or we have a bot that can do your archiving for you. - π 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Not necessarily. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Human changing a section again

I wrote that Human did this before to my edit on the CS talk page. Π asked for a diff. Here is a similar example (although this time s/he didn't need to set the indentation to a seemingly "arbitrary" location). ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that this talk page is not my property. Here you will observe Human altering my edit. I will attempt to undo this. I didn't want it that way because I may want to archive the section without archiving the section I created. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Further evidence that this talk page is not my property." Exactly. This talk page is not your property. What's so difficult about that for you to understand? P-Foster (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well do you have some guide for those who wish to know how their talk page is likely to be altered by administrators here? ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If you format it like a dummy, Human will come and fix it. What exactly are you trying to do here? P-Foster (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And Human will fix it only because that's something Human just does. There's no stopping his fixes, unless you want him to yell at you the next time he's drunk for not letting him help you fix something. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 01:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I only take Human's "insults" seriously if I can find some sort of constructive criticism in it. If he has community support that is another matter. But I have seen a lot of evidence that he does not. Comments by SusanG's quote on this page (currently), Gooniepunk's comment here, and the forum on the racist linking, are examples. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Am I not supposed to revert Human's edits? Nobody has changed it back yet. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

no. Unless he did something in bad faith, which is unlikely to be the case. what are you trying to do here, exactly? P-Foster (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One may act in "good faith" but make a mistake. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment here doesn't seem to be indented to the proper level. I suppose you wouldn't want me to indent it. Why didn't you indent it? ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I try to organize stuff. Could you ask a more specific question? ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is nobody understands your organisation. We have our own convention that everyone has learnt and we all use it because it is easier than learning a new one to suit one editor. - π 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
EC. Because I didn't feel like it. As for being more specific, how does leaving so much word diarrhea all over the place make anything more organized? P-Foster (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I can I put a link to Lumeniki where I replied to you? ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You could, but it's stupid and boring and would do nothing to answer my question about how you think you're bringing anything to THIS party by trolling us. P-Foster (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I could what? I put this on my user page. Call it "trolling" if you wish. I think many may disagree with you there. I suspect you have done this sort of thing elsewhere on this wiki, and made some "enemies" or at least raised invisible eyebrows. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved that "reply" to this subpage. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I would rather "talk" to Π, if this can be allowed here. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'm trying to do (here)

I wanted a wiki where diverse groups (Conservapedia, Metapedia, RationalWiki/Liberapedia,WikiSynergy) could collaborate to form multiview debate maps. ~ Lumenos (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your methodology is either far too clever or (more likely) complete bullshit to actually work in any known universe. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Let the record show that a Jack Hughes has suggested that my methodology is so clever in fact that it won't "work", for some mysterious purpose. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is nobody actually wants you to do it (here).--BobSpring is sprung! 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Aaah but Brotha Bob, where's ya proof? ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think his proof is him, Nx, Human, Weaseloid, P-Foster, Goonie and me telling you to stop rearranging the fucking pages. - π 03:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit break 1

Π, what conventions am I not following? ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are rearranging comments, creating new level 2 headers in the middle of older ones, placing down block quotes by other in these new sections, you are changing your comments after other have replied, you are forking discussion by stating new sections on other pages.
But this is really tiring. How about we agree that you can use what ever convention you like on your talkpage, so long as you don't; a) remove comments without archiving, b) edit the words of others' comments (titles and indents are alright), c) you follow the normal convention on other talkpages outside your userspace (just go with the flow don't format), d) you don't "organise" comments not on your user talk, this includes copying comments from one talkpage to discuss them on another, and e) you stop trying to fork conversations to other pages, including your own wiki. In return nobody should post on Lumenos' talkpage unless it is helpful advice and people should stop harassing him here and on the admin abuse page. - π 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Just so one thing is understood. Human changed a heading from the way it originally was on this page. I was changing it back to the original (as I had created the section). P-Forester seems to either agree with that convention or s/he trusts Human. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Boring

This Lumenos stuff is incredibly boring and is going nowhere. Acei9 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the McWicked one. Anybody care to help me out over here instead of all this bickering? This upcoming article is turning out to be more work than I bargained for. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See ya there! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple

  • a thread is anything under a level 2 heading (==whatever==)
  • if it gets long, level 3 heading can be used to split it (===EZ edit break=== etc.), preferably somewhere where it makes sense (e.g. not between a question and an answer). But you should just leave this to someone more experienced.
  • until you understand how talk pages work (probably never), do not move any discussions at all. I've set up Pibot on your talk page so it will be archived automatically. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't replace your comments with something completely different because that will just make the discussion impossible to follow after people have replied to you. If you must change something, add an indented comment under it or use strikeouts. Better yet: Slow down. You don't need to inform us every 5 minutes that you've now decided to move a discussion to a slightly different location, and then 2 minutes later that you have indeed carried out the move. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much what BON said. - π 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lumeneader for lumenection

I am here, oh Lumenaster. Where are the Lumenaps to be Lumenated? Lumenoid (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope everybody likes you as much as me. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
They seem to be lumenighted with me! Thanks! Lumenoid (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop

I don't know what it is you are trying to achieve but you are clogging RC for what seems like a completely purposeless reason. Please stop, think, and attempt to do.....whatever it is you are trying to do in a more straight forward manner. Thanks. Acei9 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you or P-Forester are talking about unless you are specific. I don't think I'm doing anything in a secret manner. I don't know what you mean. To reply to you I must put a thing in Recent Changes. (I guess there is some way to prevent this, but then I might be accused of hiding the evidence or something.) ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This, smart ass. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what this "secret manner" you are speaking about refers to all I know is that you have been clogging up RC for days with a number of different sub-pages and splintered conversations that appear to be going nowhere and are completely purposeless. I submit to you that what ever you are wanting to do would have either been done by now or not at all so just, you know, quit it. Acei9 04:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I would add that this whole fucking edit war or whatever between Lumenos, Human, P-Foster et al has to stop. It's just getting petty. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on this comment I will probably quote things and post to Lumeniki, rather than at RationalWiki. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks. Acei9 05:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pibot

Pibot sounds like a good idea, just to get people off my back. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Did you read my comment above in the edit break 1 section? - π 03:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One consequence of this is that I don't know when things are going to get sucked into the archive, so I am giving the stuff at the top the highest priority. ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the help/instruction page that is now linked from your talk page. You can set how many days you want dead threads to languish. If I could figure it out, you can too. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I found the time setting. I wonder if editing something with no section resets the time for the entire page. If so, I suppose I can limit your time to an hour (to reply in a section or change the time setting) before I have anything archived with Pibot. (forgot to sign this earlier ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC))
Pibot reads the actual timestamps left by signatures. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Community standards at lumeniki

I have started a page for the discussion of the community standards at Lumenos' own wiki here. In view of the time and effort which Lumenos has put into helping out the RW Community Standards, I think it only fair that RW should help him with his.--Hitman (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at you wiki Lumenos I think that your troll article is a thing of great wonder. Might I ask if it is a good representation of how you think pages should look?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a very strong idea of how articles (or people) should be. I think articles should be interesting and have sources/signatures where necessary. Lumeniki is not RationalWiki, nor would I attempt to make it that way (except perhaps by making a suggestion now and then, if that is not too controversial). When articles are young, in a small fledgling wiki, it may help stimulate activity, to have less regulations on how everything must be. Currently, you can come "spam" lumeniki with your username, etc. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)