User talk:Eira
From RationalWikiWiki
Contents |
[edit] Sysop
Congrats. Now I've really got to go study.Ty 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- meh... --Eira 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] because I can be pretty thick
We are exchanging jokes, right? We aren't actually flaming each other? I'm asking because it's hard for me to tell at times.--Brxbrx 16:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can't be doing both? --Eira 16:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Strange
You are an awfully strange person. Ty 00:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a joke referring to how Muslims are expected to say a prayer every time they say the name of God. --Eira 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The 2 communities
When I finish updating it, you may find this interesting. It arose out of boredom one day, but people have noticed that it looks like RW is becoming 2 different communities. Ty 23:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I saw it, though I'm wondering about the analysis that shows 2 different communities separating. I mean, I'll grant you there are two, it's almost a smack you in the face apparent. --Eira 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] You aren't allowed to edit your own article
It violates this site's cardinal rule. Maratrean 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a comment that anyone who does so is a "sad sad person". And I didn't change any of the attack nature of the original edit. I just formatted it and pedantically corrected details. --Eira 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The nature of your edits aren't really the point. It's the violation of principle, especially when doing so is disputed. Can't you just make suggestions on the Talk page, and leave it up to other editors to decide if they are warranted or not? Maratrean 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right, so we're supposed to leave abusive personal attacks on our page? I'm fine with leaving attacks on my page, but they at least ought be correct about the details. --Eira 11:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why not raise the issue and seek someone else to fix it, rather than doing it yourself? Or just get some thicker skin? Maratrean 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right, that's the answer to
libelbad formatting, and redundant paragraphs... "grow a thicker skin"... to which I respond: the most recent edits are accurate in so far as they state fact, and do not need to be fixed. --Eira 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)- As I said, raise the issue on the Talk page, and if other editors agree they will make the change. Suggesting this "libel" (even if only in strike-through) is being overdramatic. Maratrean 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- So... negative statements about another person that are factually false, but presented as factually true is not libel? Wow... wtf is wrong with your head... did you hit it as a child? --Eira 12:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Without getting into legal technicalities (which vary from place to place anyway), libel is not just negative falsehoods about a person, it is negative falsehoods that put the person in a severely bad light. "Eira drinks the blood of babies" would be libel. "Eira is a mean abusive bitch who abuses her power on some wiki that hardly anyone has ever heard of" isn't. Maratrean 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be confused about the law again... you are not a lawyer, you do not what amount of injury and/or harm is necessary to assert a case for libel. --Eira 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- And you are not making any sense whatsoever. "you do not what amount of injury and/or harm is necessary to assert a case for libel". One hardly has to be a lawyer to know more about the law than you do. Maratrean 12:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, "you do not know what amount..." it was a typo. --Eira 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I pedanted the pedant. Of course I knew what you meant, I just decided to ignore it, like you tend to do to others. Maratrean 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why I corrected myself and gave you the opportunity to address my statement after it was corrected. --Eira 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You say I don't know. Do you know? If you don't know, how can you know that I don't know? Maratrean 12:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know the exact bounds of what is actionable or not. But I do know that at least in some states impugning a woman's chastity is defamation. That means you can't call them "sluts" or "whores" without facing a libel/slander charge. And asking how I can't assert that you don't know when I don't know either, I don't know what the universe was like at T_universe = 0, but I can also definitively assert that you don't know either. --Eira 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "universe at T_0" example is irrelevant, because there you believe no one knows, and if no one knows, then obviously I don't either. But, at least in the case of the legal definition of libel, some people definitely do know (and not necessarily all lawyers either), so how do you know I'm not one of them?
- Yes, impugning a person's chastity would be libel. Accusing them of any form of sexual misconduct, legal or illegal, would be (even if it is only 'misconduct' by a rather prudish standard). That would include "slut" or "whore" (although whether it was meant by the speaker, or interpreted by listeners, literally rather than just as a term of abuse, would be a relevant consideration). But no one has accused you of any sexual misconduct here, and you can't really compare the things you are accused of to accusations of sexual misconduct. So this example is not relevant either. Maratrean 13:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah... --Eira 14:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know the exact bounds of what is actionable or not. But I do know that at least in some states impugning a woman's chastity is defamation. That means you can't call them "sluts" or "whores" without facing a libel/slander charge. And asking how I can't assert that you don't know when I don't know either, I don't know what the universe was like at T_universe = 0, but I can also definitively assert that you don't know either. --Eira 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You say I don't know. Do you know? If you don't know, how can you know that I don't know? Maratrean 12:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why I corrected myself and gave you the opportunity to address my statement after it was corrected. --Eira 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I pedanted the pedant. Of course I knew what you meant, I just decided to ignore it, like you tend to do to others. Maratrean 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, "you do not know what amount..." it was a typo. --Eira 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- And you are not making any sense whatsoever. "you do not what amount of injury and/or harm is necessary to assert a case for libel". One hardly has to be a lawyer to know more about the law than you do. Maratrean 12:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be confused about the law again... you are not a lawyer, you do not what amount of injury and/or harm is necessary to assert a case for libel. --Eira 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Without getting into legal technicalities (which vary from place to place anyway), libel is not just negative falsehoods about a person, it is negative falsehoods that put the person in a severely bad light. "Eira drinks the blood of babies" would be libel. "Eira is a mean abusive bitch who abuses her power on some wiki that hardly anyone has ever heard of" isn't. Maratrean 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- So... negative statements about another person that are factually false, but presented as factually true is not libel? Wow... wtf is wrong with your head... did you hit it as a child? --Eira 12:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, raise the issue on the Talk page, and if other editors agree they will make the change. Suggesting this "libel" (even if only in strike-through) is being overdramatic. Maratrean 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right, that's the answer to
- Why not raise the issue and seek someone else to fix it, rather than doing it yourself? Or just get some thicker skin? Maratrean 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right, so we're supposed to leave abusive personal attacks on our page? I'm fine with leaving attacks on my page, but they at least ought be correct about the details. --Eira 11:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The nature of your edits aren't really the point. It's the violation of principle, especially when doing so is disputed. Can't you just make suggestions on the Talk page, and leave it up to other editors to decide if they are warranted or not? Maratrean 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- And the edits themselves were reverted as per "This is not a hate site". I think my actions were quite reasonable under the circumstances. --Eira 15:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] same as above
Please see rationalWikiWiki:editing your own article. For an example of whining patheticly on the talk page see talk:ListenerX or talk:Ty --Ty 13:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- And the Consequences are a locked user article, not a block. If anyone can point to an edit that I made that removed teeth from the attack, beyond for factually false statements, I'd be happy to take a look at it. --Eira 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Block policy says you can be blocked for editing your own page - "Whitewashing one's own RWW page". Whether you are 'whitewashing', opinions will differ; but if someone reasonably believes you are, they would be justified in blocking you for it. Maratrean 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm curious. What's RWW's policy towards editors who block other editors and strip them of their rights, before editing their own article. --Psygremlin 13:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find a claim of "whitewashing" tenuous as the criticism remained... --Eira 13:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The RWW block policy is poorly thought-out and poorly worded, it needs to be redone. The vagueness of "whitewashing" is an example. Right now is probably not the best time to do that though. Maratrean 13:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Block policy says you can be blocked for editing your own page - "Whitewashing one's own RWW page". Whether you are 'whitewashing', opinions will differ; but if someone reasonably believes you are, they would be justified in blocking you for it. Maratrean 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Article
If you don't want people finding your little club, don't talk about it at the saloon bar! John Childermass 01:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with people finding this stuff... but making your own article the very day that you joined RWW, and when you haven't been there for more than a day still screams "Drama Queen". --Eira 01:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will grant you that. I more irritated at the accusations of sock puppetry. I realize such things are par for the course at RationalWiki, but on other websites, that is a pretty grave accusation.John Childermass 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why the hell do people get so irritated about this sockpuppetry crap... RW is full of sockpuppets and everyone knows it. Get over yourself. --Eira 01:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I joined this afternoon, I did not know that. It was explained to me later by Reckless Noise Symphony, but why confuses me. John Childermass 01:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Socks are allowed on RationalWiki because, well, they really aren't that harmful based on the RationalWiki system of operation. Or something..... Conficker 01:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that screw up the voting system? Maybe that is the cause of all the drama occurring there, or as MordantMaenad termed it "headless chicken mode" John Childermass 01:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- And there is the crux of the matter, we don't vote on things... that's why it's all Headless Chicken Mode. --Eira 01:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Nah, the drama over there is the end result of an old system that believed that "sysops" were nothing special, just people there to clean up. And that bureaucrats were just janitor with even bigger mops, and that none was better than the other. Unfortunately, some people let the terms get to their heads, and what were positions that held little meaning suddenly became a 'crats versus sysops war. That, topped with the fact that there was no real system of conflict resolution led to the current drama. Thankfully, it appears that the drama over there is starting to die down. It just had to find its equilibrium first. Conficker 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see. I'd see it as a sign of the site maturing. Overcoming the inherent conservatism of mobocracy is difficult. I take it that the debate was largely old vs. new editors as well? John Childermass 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly started that way. It's hard to tell at this point what the end result of whom vs. whom was. Conficker 02:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too many people to keep track of. Too many cliques. The alliances shift, cabals are formed, emails are sent. Etcetera. John Childermass 02:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Either it's stupid fucking obvious, or seriously, you have some inside knowledge that you're not sharing. Also, your vocabulary usage shows a deeper understanding of all of this than a newb would normally be expected to have. --Eira 02:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, mind your tongue. I do check out websites before joining them. I did look at your what-is-going-on page. The words "Battle of the Cabal" do stand out. Ergo, there must be at least one cabal. As they are arguing with someone, that suggests another cabal. John Childermass 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is but one Cabal. Night Film 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've been on these webpages for what? A day? I've been here since 5 months after it started. We fucking cuss a lot. Don't tell me to "mind my tongue". You're new here. Get with the program. --Eira 02:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, I work mostly for a school. If I said what I was thinking every time I found someone melting candy on a motherboard, I'd be fired. John Childermass 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's cool, the US is so stupid about obscenities... it's a "bad habit" that people have to watch their mouths all the time. --Eira 02:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Schools and old ladies are my two largest groups of clients. I have worked myself into the habit of self-censoring. John Childermass 02:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's cool, the US is so stupid about obscenities... it's a "bad habit" that people have to watch their mouths all the time. --Eira 02:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, I work mostly for a school. If I said what I was thinking every time I found someone melting candy on a motherboard, I'd be fired. John Childermass 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, mind your tongue. I do check out websites before joining them. I did look at your what-is-going-on page. The words "Battle of the Cabal" do stand out. Ergo, there must be at least one cabal. As they are arguing with someone, that suggests another cabal. John Childermass 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Either it's stupid fucking obvious, or seriously, you have some inside knowledge that you're not sharing. Also, your vocabulary usage shows a deeper understanding of all of this than a newb would normally be expected to have. --Eira 02:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too many people to keep track of. Too many cliques. The alliances shift, cabals are formed, emails are sent. Etcetera. John Childermass 02:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly started that way. It's hard to tell at this point what the end result of whom vs. whom was. Conficker 02:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see. I'd see it as a sign of the site maturing. Overcoming the inherent conservatism of mobocracy is difficult. I take it that the debate was largely old vs. new editors as well? John Childermass 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Nah, the drama over there is the end result of an old system that believed that "sysops" were nothing special, just people there to clean up. And that bureaucrats were just janitor with even bigger mops, and that none was better than the other. Unfortunately, some people let the terms get to their heads, and what were positions that held little meaning suddenly became a 'crats versus sysops war. That, topped with the fact that there was no real system of conflict resolution led to the current drama. Thankfully, it appears that the drama over there is starting to die down. It just had to find its equilibrium first. Conficker 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- And there is the crux of the matter, we don't vote on things... that's why it's all Headless Chicken Mode. --Eira 01:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that screw up the voting system? Maybe that is the cause of all the drama occurring there, or as MordantMaenad termed it "headless chicken mode" John Childermass 01:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Socks are allowed on RationalWiki because, well, they really aren't that harmful based on the RationalWiki system of operation. Or something..... Conficker 01:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will grant you that. I more irritated at the accusations of sock puppetry. I realize such things are par for the course at RationalWiki, but on other websites, that is a pretty grave accusation.John Childermass 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
