User talk:Human

From WikiSynergy
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Somewhere around here I usually express my preference for avoiding table-tennis conversations. If I muck up your talk page, I'll stalk you until you reply there. If you defame my lovely estate of ones and zeros here, I'll add some random non sequitur to it here. Cheers! Human

Contents

Welcome

Hello Human

Welcome to WikiSynergy!
We have some lofty goals, and we hope you will join our community.

If you know about something on the frontier of human thought —a website, group, person, book, place or type of experience— it belongs here! You can start an article about it. Please remember to link to us, so that this resource will be as valuable as possible to you and those you write about. Here is an introduction about what WikiSynergy can mean to you.

Here are some pointers to get you started:

  • Check out our projects in the menu to the right
  • When you edit discussion pages, sign your posts by putting four tildes like this: ~~~~
  • You can edit your userpage by clicking your user name on the tab above, and tell us a little about yourself.
  • If you have any questions, you can ask them on our FAQ page.
  • Here you can review the basic structure of the site and our policies.


Insultive and being nice

Hi Human. this was potentially a bit insulting, and I hope you will leave the tone of Rationalwiki behind you when you come here. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you were doing with the "irrational number Pi." Pi didn't get it, and neither did I. People are just too touchy for that kind of thing, even though once it's explained it is funny. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, avoiding making a mistake like that is basically impossible. I see a user named after probably the most famous irrational number in the universe, and I can't make a friendly joke about it? If there was a user named i I'd probably suggest they "get real"... anyway, the "error", if there was one, was because of me thinking it was user:pi from RW, due to when the user signed up. Also, their "not getting it" is not at all proven - pi's response to me looks like a similar jest, in the same spirit of what I would think would be considered "collegial". Hopefully I'll get this figured out eventually. Human 01:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You have to take into consideration that 1) for me, as an admin for this wiki, such relationships are hard to figure out so I thought you were greeting a person you didn't know 2) I did nothing besides post on your talk page 3) I was reading your posts on Rationalwiki which were snarky, as the whole wiki is supposed to be, so I thought you were bringing some of that culture over here, 4) people pick on things seriously: for example, just having the word "synergy" sounded like woo to the people on the JREF forum. So when I saw your joke I though you were being serious about it, same as they were with "synergy." The word synergy is used here because it seems as if bringing in a lot of different viewpoints on neutral ground should produce a synergistic effect toward knowledge (Synergy: "The working together of two things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects".
I would think that there would be times where Rationalwiki would like to have a place to meet on neutral ground with those they criticize. This is such a place. The entire reputation of the wiki stands on collegiality and neutrality, an NPOV policy —GPOV— adapted for fringe ideas. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 06:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting edit [1] PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope I didn't break anything. Hey, have you considered having a "best of WS" category? That way people can see what articles here should end up looking like, perhaps? Still finding my way around a bit... Human 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Could do that. Suggested article? I feature things on the main page. But we shouldn't have just one format the way wikis usually specialize. We can have quotes,[2] a FAQ,[3] controversy articles,[4] controversy essays,[5] "orientation biographies,"[6], lists[7], analysis [8][9], top ten lists, blogs, lots of different things in different formats. So I do not want to restrict people or make them feel restricted. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, duh, I missed the featured articles on the main page. When you say, for example, "blogs", that would mean an article on a given blog, right? And anyway, a "best of" cat would allow inclusion of any of these formats or approaches, right? And hopefully there will end up being too many to list on the front page ;) Human 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I think so. You could have a blog here (IMHO wiki is much better technology for a blog than most blog software), or a page about a blog. I am not so sure we can easily do "best of." I have the idea of making articles which are endorsed by different factions, but it may prove difficult to get agreement on that kind of thing [10]. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Other

You know, RW Time cube article should have big red fonts. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have a pocket Gene Ray "cube" generator which does... Human 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And you are right about the incoherence. I did that on purpose. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 06:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But we never called ourselves skeptics. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as I was first mucking around here trying to get a feel for the site I thought you were, as opposed to "pseudoskeptics". I need to figure out a better way to phrase that description. And, of course, the "we" here is as widely diverse (ie, not all agreeing obviously) as the "we" on RW. Human 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct. This site and others such as SCEPCOP is a very broad coalition, where the members agree on certain things —such as that pseudoskepticism exists— but otherwise probably disagree on most things. One reason for this site is to try and band together on those issues fringe people can agree on, and also hash out what is real. My own position is that no matter how wrong a subject is, it should be considered and discussed in the most scientific and reasonable way possible, and it seldom is. I suppose it is too much to ask to be judged by the statements I make rather than the company I keep- the company I keep on both sides of the isle. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I agree that this wiki and quite a few others should merge. Of course, I want them to merge here, lol. But this wiki is set up on purpose to allow lots of different ideas to exist harmoniously with full freedom of expression and little friction (see the word "Synergy"). If projects merged, they would not limp along so badly. I have been angling in that direction with User:Rainbow. If you have any contacts at W4C could you set something up? A contact? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You should be able to get some more grist for your mill from the site notice. Why don't you have an article on SCEPCOP? Their Google ranking is much higher than WS. I would really like a good contact at W4C. I could not find Rainbow there.

No, I think they should merge here, as your "mission" is to agglomerate all frontier thought in one place. As far as W4C, I edited there for a bit, but the site is, sadly, mostly fallow. We don't have a snartikle on SCEPCOP? We are such losers. Hopefully we'll fix that soon, thanks! Human 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently Trent created it today :) Thank you for all your help. I think it's fun that we "push" each other. Human
What would you get from merging anything from Wiki4Cam? The site is completely empty, cultivate contacts with groups and websites that have activity. A million ghost town wikis are still ghost town wikis. Etaroced 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Human, it is fun we push each other. I thought that perhaps a wiki with plenty of controversy would work better than for example W4C for that reason. Etaroced, it does look like a ghost town, but at least one of their editors came over here. Something might work out. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice on Zammit

Human, your advice: Victor Zammit [11] keeps saying how he has his evidence up online, and no one has been able to rebut it. He is one of the primary people out there on the "pro" side. What if I could persuade him to put some of his material up on WS, and let it be rebutted? I believe that he makes it clear that he is not making a scientific case, but only a court case. Still, something might work out. Before going further in my thinking, I would like to know if you think skeptics would be interested. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... briefly, ignoring my personal reaction to his site (which I am sure you could predict! haha), I think as far as I can tell so far, your goal is to let people promote "frontier" ideas on the site. Whether they would be comfortable with a section that refutes/argues against them is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Have you experimented with "mirror" articles, where one presents one side and the other presents the other side? What I mean is that I think the skeptics would be glad to add a section tearing this delightful man a new defecatory orifice, but if that's what he is invited into he might not like it. If, however, this site will allow him to create a page presenting his perspective and (ahem, sorry) "evidence", with a simple link at the bottom to another perspective (with reciprocal link), that should make everyone happy, I'd think? I'd hope. Human 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would be approximately the plan. That is why I said this the way I did. It could be done either as a separate section or another page, but I would put the link in a see also box at the top of the page. He is all about confronting skeptics, so it might work. If he wished he could get his section protected and could keep the copyright. Or, he could edit himself to adjust his own text to account for the skeptical text; or, he could get someone else involved to adjust his section/article. Hopefully, you get article(s) with the best arguments on both sides. I need to have a system where thoughts are networked well in a non-intrusive way. Boxes or colored links something. The trouble is it takes quite a lot of work on both sides, so we might really need to start out small. Oh, and the site is not about promotion: rather, that is a part of the first level, as originally conceived [12] (I need to put controversy into that pyramid). PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Link for you PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 02:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your point was there, but I once holed up in an observation tower and watched a lightning storm come in and go away. I was supposed to sleep there but a friend drove out (I rode my bike 18 miles to get there) and drug me back so we could smoke stems and seeds in the safety of our dorm rooms. Human 08:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

So do you really want that template or does it matter? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which template? They are usually good to have ;) Wait, memory is rolling in over the clouds... was it the "unsigned" one? Yeah, it's good to have if that was it. I could make it (I imagine, there's no restriction on creating templates here is there?), by copying from RW, or you could, if you want it to have some "WS flavor". Human 04:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you came here for some reason, too

I, myself, am still not sure that I will stick around here.Gooniepunk2005 01:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is long term. It is just now getting to the point where it is sufficiently developed to get some from the paranormal community involved. You and the Rationalwiki crowd are one reason I think it is ready for more involvement. Just a few weeks ago I thought it was technically ready for real use. We are not in this to stop development after a few months, nor are we here to hurry things. I will work on publicity when my schedule gives me more time. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 02:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I understand wikis are a long-term project. Perhaps when this wiki evolves more than it has I will be able to better understand what it should look, sound, and feel like. HOwever, right now, I'm not sure I completely understand what the point of this wiki is in relation to how it should happen.Gooniepunk2005 02:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There are some intros. What would I need to add to them? We are trying to do controversy especially. Look at this graphic. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, now that I've had a chance to browse, I think I have the hang of things here.Gooniepunk2005

Great. As a Rationalwikian, —or as whatever you like— what is your impression? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you guys reject traditional science. I get that and accept the challenge of defending the rigorousness of the scientific method. I am, by far, not the strongest skeptical debater, nor do I consider myself the staunchest. But if you guys can handle my iquiries and questions, how do you expect stronger skeptics to do so? By the way, if this discussion is to continue, can we (since this is Human's talkpage) move it over to my talkpage?Gooniepunk2005 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't. Tom rejects trying to explain himself to traditional science. He also does not, so far as I know, reject rigorous science and protocol. You said But if you guys can handle my iquiries and questions, how do you expect stronger skeptics to do so? . Do you mean "can't?" I am not sure what that sentence means. Okay, move the discussion. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, Purple. I did mean "can't" as opposed "can". Sorry for the typo, it should make sense now. Cheers!Gooniepunk2005 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Aw, I didn't mind it being here, I like me some orange boxes ;) I'm used to my talkpages being used for things that have nothing to do with me, I actually enjoy it, it gives me a warm feeling of significance. I think. Human 04:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You are the most significant Human on the planet =P

PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 07:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaahaha, thanks. Human 07:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Vass-arp?

The more we try to make it feel like home, the lonelier we get...

You didn't greet me with a yellow box once I started? What's up with that, man? Getting into all sorts of trouble already you are... Sorry, I've been drinking and there's no Saloon Bar around... SuperJosh 23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys want a community portal of some kind? I have been thinking of two things: first, a community portal, if we have the community to make one worthwhile, and second a "Cockfight Corner," where all civility rules are suspended within legal limits, but you have to agree with your opponent to go there before you can post. I might delete the page regularly. Whatever people want. But not called a saloon bar. You guys are a bunch of drunks, this makes at least three inebriated people from Rationalwiki posting here, lol. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha! Cock.
Anyway, interesting idea, although I think only one social group "community portal" is needed. It's your wiki mate, so it's up to you. Obviously you can't take "saloon bar" as that's OURS! ;) SuperJosh 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could have a "Cantina", and then we could call you a "wretched hive of scum and villany"! The EmperorI can feel your anger. It gives you focus, makes you stronger. 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, PS, if you want to give us a "rude space" for the time being, that is a very nice offer. As you know, we are a swarm of bees whose hive has been destroyed (hopefully temporarily). We would not expect you to keep that page indefinitely. Your offer is most gracious. Human 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Would that be necessary? Most of us are over at teflpedia and we have the student bar there. SuperJosh 10:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ho PS. Who would there be to be to debate in the cock-fight corner? It might be a good idea, but I don't see many believers in the supernatural about.--Bob M 14:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
We might like to move one of our more active pages at teflonwiki here to distribute the load. It would be disposable (ie, after we're back on line, we copy it over, you can delete it), could be in a subnamespace (ie, it won't turn up on "random"), and we would be indebted. Also, it might bring you more "skeptical" traffic. PS, PS, what are you doing to get more "proponent" traffic? I think that's the hard part of what you are trying to build. Human 03:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are worried about load? I am running 1% of my allotted bandwidth, unless the panel is wrong. ROTFL...... I NEVER thought I would have skeptics and not proponents (though that could be just because of the impression the first skeptics got, and told me about). But I am thinking on that. Suggestions? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, we kinda overloaded our friend BobM's wiki, we do tend to pile up bandwidth. 30-40 people joined, and we like to chatter about our goats and other highly important matters. We might need a way to avoid pushing him over his bandwidth allotment for August. I'll stay in touch on this. As far as getting more "proponents" to join and participate here, it seems to me that rather than single articles like an encyclopedia (or indeed, most wikis) would have, WS is about having "clusters" of articles - perhaps 3-4 written by proponents from their own perspective, maybe one or two written by skeptics, and maybe a "main" article that briefly defines the woo frontier topic. All linked to each other and in a shared category. If you had one good example of such a structure to use as a "selling point" to people, it might help. Right now the site is lacking structure (as far as I can tell), and certainly lacking sub-structures like I just described. I think I get your vision (as described above, to an extent), but selling it to newcomers/invitees requires presenting that idea clearly on the main page, and having it clearly develop as mainspace articles accumulate. Human 05:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should spend more time here but I'm still a bit confused about purposes. I know that you have a graphic which meant to explain things but I'm afraid it didn't say a lot to me. Given that my point of view is somewhat different to that which seems to be expressed in most articles I am reluctant to edit them as that would probably be seen as pushing a differing point of view. Which rather leaves debating definitions on talk pages. However as your description page states that one of your objectives is - "To provide a place where those who hold frontier ideas can come for aid when they are under attack." - I'm not even sure that I should be doing even that. Because that rather implies the place is somehow a protected refuge from sceptics, and that sceptical "attacks" would not be welcomed.
On another issue, thanks for the offer of space on the wiki. I'm up against the wall at the moment, but the month is almost over. But following on from the points I made above I'm not sure how many RW editors you'd actually want here. On the other hand I suppose WS might be a more natural place for them to pile in than a wiki on English teaching - a topic about which few of them will have much natural interest.--Bob M 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
But, goats are an important matter. Sterile 02:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Human 03:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the great points about structure, Human. I will get to working on them more after a few days. "Given that my point of view is somewhat different to that which seems to be expressed in most articles I am reluctant to edit them as that would probably be seen as pushing a differing point of view." Try doing alternate paragraphs, which state the viewpoint you are working from, or do alternate sections. We also state that we will provide defense of skeptics if they actually need it footnote 1. This wiki is meant for controversy, to give each view a chance to show its best arguments see pt 4. I can use all the editors I can get, especially if they write articles/sections of articles. It does not matter if they are promoting a skeptical or proponent viewpoint. We can also do subjects other than paranormal. We cannot do some of the fun stuff you do on RW, with your snarky point of view, so that takes some of the fun out of it. We could however have a fun category or namespace. I really do not care if the wiki swings over toward skepticism, because it can always be balanced out later and because the skepticism is a necessary part. Just having articles with halfway decent content will get us traffic. People are pretty prickly though. I just had a proponent quit because I was being too nice to the skeptics, but perhaps better structure explanations might help with that, as Human says. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 05:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

How do you block people for less than the 2 hours in the drop-down box? I wanted to give Green Goose a warning block, but do not want to block for that long. I saw you block for seconds at RationalWiki. I notice it has a box for other times, but do not know how to write it in. And Google is not very helpful. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You click or pick "other time" and type in the time you want. Ironically, I can't double check that since there are no functioning wikis where I am a sysop right now. The software recognizes seconds, minutes, hours, days and years, not sure about months, decades or centuries, know it doesn't recognize fortnights or semesters. Maximum block length is around 100,000,000 years, IIRC. Also, there are mediawiki files that can be edited for both the time increments and the block reasons. Human 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it doesn't recognize fractions or decimals, either. So ya can't block someone for 3.14159 seconds. Don't even try imaginary numbers, the results are unpredictable. Human 01:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Practice by blocking yourself (or me, or whoever). Just type "1 second" or "2012 years" or whatever in the box. You might want to create a few sockpuppets to torture. Check the block log afterwards to make sure it worked. Human 01:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, I can block on a storehouse of YECretinism. Leave the "other" in the dropdown (it's the default anyway), and type the time in the box directly below it. Human 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol, what a great explanation. You really should post that at the FAQ, you know [13]. The missing piece of information for me was that I did not know it recognized actual words like "second." That solves everything (; PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Would you be so kind...

As to help me out with a certain goose of the green color on the Woo talkpage? I can't seem to get through to him (probably because I suck at debating people over the internet as opposed to real life) that his stereotypes aren't really reality. Thanks if you do, can't blame you if you don't.Gooniepunk2005 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. But I do see what you mean about green goose. What a hypocrite!Gooniepunk2005 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Is it just me

Or does it seem, by his recent trolling, that green goose is just like (and may, in fact be) MarcusCicero?Gooniepunk2005 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, but its manner sometimes seems less than collegial. Could just be me, though. Human 00:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The grammar does seem similar, as does the holier-than-though approach to discussion. It might be a common type, though. Human 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I suppose, just like with MC, Fall down, and Linuxian, I will just have to ignore the little bastard. By the way, and completely unrelated, been keeping you radio tuned to Malloy? I have been very pleased with his going after the embarrassment that is Michelle Bachmann as of late.Gooniepunk2005 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So GG had a point about being insulted on your usertalk pages. How would you suggest forming a tradition or policy on that? PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 00:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters, he can not go about clearing my talkpage and replacing it with insults. That would be nice. At least on a talkpage, if you aren't being a troll, you have the ability to refute people.Gooniepunk2005 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so that is what Emperor was talking about. Like I said, I was gone. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 03:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(EC)GG is way over the top. Goonie, yeah, I love MM's attack on Bachmann. I don't always hear it all because sometimes Slutty Roux calls and interrupts/engages my time. Back to PS and GG. Yes, The Goonie One "insulted" GG on my talk page. However, look at the names GG has called goonie - and more importantly, nice little collegial me - without provocation. GG may very well be a "whatever Goonie called it", but Goonie and I are not what GG called us. GG is a troll, plain and simple. Human 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
He might be able to point to a provocation, but at the least he escalated wildly. As far as I can tell, he struck first at Woo, saying "What's the point of trying to write an article justifying bollocks like that" and continued with worse even though Goonie wasn't mean back at him. I wish I had been here and paying more attention. Being gone was one thing, and the other (since the situation started before I left) was that I was able to point to things on both sides, and WS is so easy to blow off at this point that I hesitated to do any blocking. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 07:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if GG's gone I might start joining in again. Getting involved in insultfest never really appeals to me.--Bob M 10:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice

Very nice, good policy. Well put. PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 04:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, just trying to help other people understand how this place is supposed to work. Human 05:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

molecules

Here is where I blather on about molecules. Sterile 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Human 00:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but where did Ton (?) introduce the "analogy"? Human 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I was more responding to Lumenos's "corner of the room" comment at the bottom of this post. Sterile 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one!!! I still remember having to go wash the stupid out of my eyes after reading that. Not sure how I lost track of it, possibly there were many more edits after it and I couldn't be bothered to dig out the right diff later. Thanks again! Human 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see now why I couldn't find it to discuss it - lumpynose move it to a sub page. Human 23:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi there, please see Gooniepunk's talk :-). MrFahrenheit 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Human 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 : |

 : ) Wikademia

Cool

Hey, nice to see you're still keeping track of the site (; PuRple scissorʇɐןʞ 06:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I try to pop in every few days to see if the activity level is rebounding. "or do you guys anthropomophize it?", nah, it was poor grammar based on me probably knowing the person or people involved. But a site itself is not a person of course, even though we have had a few furries on board. Human 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So.....

Do you still watch this Wiki, or have you ceased caring? Just curious... Gooniepunk2005 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wikisynergy.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Human&oldid=7215"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox