See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:LowKey

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search
This is LowKey's talk page.


  • If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch it for a reply.
  • If you leave a message on my talk page, I will reply to it here (or put a notice here if the response is elsewhere for some reason).
Archive 1 (16 March 2010)

Contents

Multiple accounts not against the rules

Where is the rule against multiple accounts? I am upfront about it so I don't see what the problem is. [1] Jaxe 08:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Abusing" not "having." You are creating additional accounts to post past a block, which is an abuse (and the problem). I already blocked the latest before reading this, also. You didn't even create 2 and 3 accounts to protest the block (which still would have been an abuse - we have email functionality and a questions page), but to continue other discussion and to repeat the edit that got you blocked.BradleyF (LowKey) 08:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross

Thanks! That Hymn is one of my favorites. --TimSTalk 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine too :) I am glad you appreciate it. That last verse is just about my favourite text outside of the Bible. BradleyF (LowKey) 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Horace's appeal

Please go to Sanction Review Committee/cases/Horace April 2010‎ and state your case for your block of Horace. Philip J. Rayment 12:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As promised....

I found some info on the WMAP regarding the age of the universe. Ace McWicked 08:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see it. I don't quite agree witht he way you have conveyed it, but that's what the talk page is for! :) I'll have a look at the source, and possibly comment further in the article talk. LowKey 00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Redefinition

Actually scratch that - I care not to argue with you Brad. You are as dishonest as Philip. Redefine away. Like Philip, your attempts at redefining science can languish in obscurity. Ace McWicked 07:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are as dishonest as Philip I am also as explosive as the colour cyan (which is also to say not at all). Would you define as dishonest quoting half of a sentence, actually cutting off the crucial element to give the impression I was reffering to Dark Energy when I was in fact referring to our conversation? Because I would. What I aim to address is why we have such difficulty conveying our perspectives to each other. Have a cookie, and calm down. LowKey 10:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

...

You might need to hide the user merge log as well, if it's possible. FYI Sterile 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did. I am not happy about hiding log details, but I am less happy about the offensive language appearing all over the logs. When I hide it, what can you see? I hope that there is still a visible log entry (albeit with details hidden). LowKey 02:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is still an entry, but no details. Sterile 11:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Untrue?

Assertion. Ace McWicked 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, untrue. See aSK:Encyclopaedias and neutrality#A Storehouse of Knowledge and neutrality. Philip J. Rayment 15:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The Big Bang is untrue! To prove it see this entirely unrelated page! Ace McWicked 19:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If untrue, that implies you have an observation that falsify it. Make up your mind. Sterile 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The Big Bang is untrue! To prove it see this entirely unrelated page! It's not unrelated. It doesn't provide evidence against it, but it explains the thinking on why we can claim it to be untrue.
If untrue, that implies you have an observation that falsify it. Make up your mind. No, it doesn't imply observation; it implies evidence, which could be logical rather than observational, for example. Some of that evidence, however, is observation by the only One who was there to see it, something that you can't make any claims to.
Philip J. Rayment 23:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You are basing your whole creation event on the "one" that saw it. That "one" that saw it and described it exists entirely within bible. Outside of the Bible it could be any number of magical entities that have been proposed over the last few thousand years. Why not say Zeus did it? There is same evidence for Zues as there is your god. Ace McWicked 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify: Do you have evidence ("logical", observational, whatever) that falsifies a 14-ish billion year of the universe? A simple "yes" or "no" answer will suffice, although an actual description of what that evidence is would help clarify your position. Sterile 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You are basing your whole creation event on the "one" that saw it. Not true, although given the source, that is sufficient.
That "one" that saw it and described it exists entirely within bible. Not true at all. He exists outside creation, not just within the Bible.
Outside of the Bible it could be any number of magical entities that have been proposed over the last few thousand years. "Magic" is not up to the task. Magic is the invocation of external powers. God uses His own power.
Why not say Zeus did it? Because Zeus' attributes don't qualify him for the task. Zeus was the offspring of other gods, so is not the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient creator.
There is same evidence for Zues as there is your god. Untrue.
Do you have evidence ("logical", observational, whatever) that falsifies a 14-ish billion year of the universe? Yes, I have numerous lines of evidence, but in particular evidence in the form of eye-witness testimony from an extremely reliable source.
Philip J. Rayment 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Without indulging special pleading in favor of your ghosthead creator being an uncaused cause, why don't you explain why Zeus isn't entitled to the same lack of deference your god is? Teh Terrible Asp 07:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you read my post? I already did. By contrast, you have not explained why he should be considered a worthy candidate. Philip J. Rayment 07:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not true, although given the source, that is sufficient. Not sufficient - I am questioning the source.
What extra biblical evidence for your god is there that can not be attributed to any other god? Ace McWicked 12:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sufficient - I am questioning the source. That is a different question, so is not a rebuttal to my claim.
What extra biblical evidence for your god is there that can not be attributed to any other god? "My" God is the Creator, so any extra-biblical evidence for the Creator is evidence for "my" God. See God#names. That is, there can be only one Supreme Being. The English word for that Supreme Being is "God", and the Bible identifies God as having the name Yahweh. Other cultures have had their own terms for the Supreme Being, but any evidence for the Supreme Being is evidence for God, by definition. You could, if you wish, question whether the Bible gives the correct name for God (among other things), but that is not the issue, is it?
Philip J. Rayment 14:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, so the 'Creator' God is your God, knel then and worship Bumba (african) then or Dworkin, who by his own power, aided by the great Unicorn , created the Universe and everything. There are lots of examples. All hail the Great Unicorn , long may her tail wave. The christian God needs a bunch of hoop-jumping to have a single God with three distinct personalities and no woman God. You even get odd suggestions that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Of course there are suggestions that Yaweh was part of a 'normal' pantheon of Gods , with a mother diety, but then he killed them all so he could rule everything. Hamster 15:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
how is your god defined outside the bible? Ace McWicked 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, so the 'Creator' God is your God, knel then and worship Bumba (african) then or Dworkin, who by his own power, aided by the great Unicorn , created the Universe and everything. Why would I worship a "god" which is admittedly the invention of a science fiction writer? That you even propose this shows that you are not interested in honest debate. As for Bumba, how do you know I don't? That is, how do you know that Bumba is not an African name or term for Yahweh, whom I worship? The account of Bumba's creation could be a badly-corrupted version of Genesis, with common elements being that originally Bumba was alone, that the Earth was initially composed of water and shrouded in darkness, and that dry land emerged from the water. Sure, there's differences as well, but they can be explained by corruption of the account through being passed down orally for thousands of years.
The christian God needs a bunch of hoop-jumping to have a single God with three distinct personalities and no woman God. What hoops need to be jumped?
Of course there are suggestions that Yaweh was ... More vague, unattributed, "suggestions". Meaningless.
how is your god defined outside the bible? Please clarify the question.
Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

{undent) Bumba has a very specific role in creation , and when done , he goes back to heaven and stays there. Puking up the Universe , the earth, moon , stars, some humans, a few wildebeast and sundry other stuff doesnt sound like Genesis corrupted. Biblical scholars spend lots of effort in trying to keep to a single God, yet three distinct beings, who perform seperate tasks , and who talk to each other. If they are one god is he then suffering from a personality disorder ? Dworkin is an archetype of several mythologies, the story is actually somewhat similar to the Norse mythologies where a survivor of Ragnarok has to act to start the cycle again. Allah is clearly the christian god , simply with a new prophet. Personally I find it repugnant that God is playing off the Jews and the Arabs (mainly) with two religions and his son is running the Christians. Hamster 23:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bradley believes that User:LowKey/Allah_and_God_are_not_one. Teh Terrible Asp 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course there are suggestions that Yaweh was ... More vague, unattributed, "suggestions". Meaningless. sorry Phillip, I assumed you actually knew something of the source of your religion, apart from the Bible. Did you never wonder how God could have a son without a female deity ? Of course God the father , God the son , and God the Holy spirit are all one , they just talk independantly, and to each other. I provided a link to the origin of Yaweh some time ago but you must not have read it. It showed how a Pantheon of hebrew gods became a strictly patriarchal Godhead that loved war and killing from the war god Child of the original God father and Godess mother. Hamster 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
theres Lilith to explain as well. Very well documented outside the Bible of course since the Bible has gone through editing and the shredder several times. Book of Enoch seems to have gone , even though Jesus himself quoted it, and look what happened to Enoch. Hamster 00:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(od) May I play? Of the objections to my removal of Ace's "Big Bang" (a generalisation for the standard FLRW metric) additions, Sterile's is the only one that is directly cogent, so I will respond to that first, and then move on. Remember that we are speaking of history (and that alone justified my removal of Ace's additions) scientific falsification is not generally possible because history is not generally testable. It is reasonable to make conclusions based on evidence. 14-ish billion years is a requirement of FLRW, and as that metric fails to accurately describe the univers as it is, there is sufficient evidence to discard what it describes of the past. Thus the 14-ish billion years becomes an empty assertion, with no basis in fact.
As to the other comments, we do have an alternative decription supplied to us in the Bible which is mutually exclusive with the FLRW description. Thus if the Bible is true in its propositions (a fundamental assumption of this site) then the FLRW description cannot be true - it is thus necessarily untrue. Objections on the grounds that this alternative description come only from the Bible are pointless objections. LowKey 00:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to confirm that you're attempting presuppositional apologetics, right? Teh Terrible Asp 01:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, then I have an entry but forgot when it happened. Item is
Herder discovers principles of genetic manipulation. Patterned sticks are the answer, he declares. I discovered this when my stepfather tried to shaft me on my portion of the calves. Striped sticks shown to pregnant beast results in striped calf. I dont know the exact mechanism but its definately optical pattern inducement. urgh. Hamster 03:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
...doesnt sound like Genesis corrupted. Have you never played the game of Chinese Whispers? Stories can get very corrupted, to the point of not being recognisable as being related to the original. It could be that many other "creation myths" are corrupted versions of the same events that Genesis describes, but which have been so corrupted the connection can't be made. In this case, there are several points of similarity which does suggest a common origin.
I assumed you actually knew something of the source of your religion, apart from the Bible. And what makes you think I don't? The fact that I may not be aware of one particular thing doesn't mean that I'm aware of nothing.
Did you never wonder how God could have a son without a female deity ? No, because "son" in this case refers to a role, not to offspring. Hence no female deity is required (even assuming that supernatural beings are the same as humans in this regard).
I provided a link to the origin of Yaweh some time ago but you must not have read it. Or I've forgotten about it.
It showed how a Pantheon of hebrew gods became a strictly patriarchal Godhead that loved war and killing from the war god Child of the original God father and Godess mother. Sounds like fiction to me. Maybe I didn't read it after all and maybe that's why.
theres Lilith to explain as well. No, Lilith doesn't need explaining.
Very well documented outside the Bible of course since the Bible has gone through editing and the shredder several times. Untrue. It has been accurately copied down through history.
Book of Enoch seems to have gone , even though Jesus himself quoted it... Several non-biblical books are quoted in the Bible. It doesn't meant that they were once part of the Bible.
...and look what happened to Enoch. I don't see the relevance.
ok, then I have an entry but forgot when it happened. Item is Herder discovers principles of genetic manipulation. Patterned sticks are the answer, he declares. You are presumably thinking of Genesis 30:25-43, but it doesn't teach what bibliosceptics claims it teaches.
Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

...(2)

I won't be around until November. Also, e-mail would cut down on the side shows.... Sterile 01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Righto. I have found the book, but need to re-read it if I am to present Bate's logic itself rather than my own impression of same. Email would be fine. "Email user" alright? LowKey 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to have email activated. You will need to email me (mine's activated) if you want email from me. BTW, I was working on this as a Freemind mindmap. The jpeg on your RW userpage looks like it was created in Freemind. I could email you the .mm file when I am done if you like. LowKey 02:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... When I started using RSS feeds to monitor wikis, I must have disabled e-mail notifications and went a little too far. My regular computer's broken, which is one of my problems at the moment, and I don't have administrative rights on my computer at work, so it'll take my getting my computer fixed or a new one to look at a the .mm file. I'm hoping to get that resolved soon, but perhaps explorting it do a different format would work. Sterile 12:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't think I'll be coming around here for a while. Send me an e-mail to let me know how your doing at some point. I wish you'd stay away from Philip, even if you agree with him in principle, but I don't know that there's any persuading you. I hope things are improving flood-wise. Sterile 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being so discordant. You know I can't stand Philip. You are obviously right, but it does come across as absurd to a scientist to talk about dates that aren't really dates. Sterile 04:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Genuine?

What about my posts aren't genuine? Jesuit 01:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For clarity; I am not meaning genuine as in honest, but genuine as in acting in good faith (the two are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct), and our having some idea of who you are (I don't mean your actual RL identify). Your user page basically indicates that you don't plan on constructive contribution but more what I would term trolling. The tone and content of your recent posts is quite inflammatory, presumably for your own amusement. But go ahead and show me to be wrong. Part of my opposition is because you have not demonstrated that you are genuine, having only edited for about 4 days (3 back in January, and the last day or so). As a general rule of thumb I would look for a month or so of good faith edits. LowKey 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
On this basis, you could consider my opposition to be temporary. LowKey 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Word

Do you wanna come over? Ace McWicked 12:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to go to bed. In fact ... LowKey 12:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Goodnight, petal. Ace McWicked 12:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for the unlock. Ace McWicked 03:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wowthatwasfast! LowKey 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the only one in the office (indeed, on the entire floor) and I killing time before my Christmas holidays. I have nothing to do at the moment but didn't have enough leave to cover this week and the three weddings/holidays I have next year so instead I spent the day watching online movies and lurking on RW. Ace McWicked 03:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

you can relock my talk page

I like the windmill quote of that ministry so I thought I would add that page. I also find the statistic I shared amusing. I have no plans to edit for the foreseeable future. You can relock my talk page. Ruylopez 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either someone is here or not. Don't pander to RuyLopez simply because he is unable to take criticism or comment on his behaviour. Ace McWicked 08:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that "Not editing except when I am editing" does not realy make sense. Other editors are also largely inactive, only dropping in every now and then. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not retirement or sabbatical. It is merely casual editing. If Philip wants to relock your page he can, but as Ace says you are either here or not. LowKey 10:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Floods

So how close are you? How low-lying is where you live? I'm watching the news which says that a third of Ipswich could be flooded, and be a couple of metres higher than 1974. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The floods at Toowoomba surprised me, as my memory is that it is essentially on the top of a hill. I see now from Google Earth that it's in a bit of a depression on the top of that hill, but still... Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing after watching the news this evening - hope all is well for you and sundry. Ace McWicked 08:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The flooding of Toowoomba surprised everyone. I am still trying to get my head around it. The drive up the range to Toowoomba is quite steep, usually with several ear-pops. It boggles the mind how much rain must have fallen "uphill" of Toowoomba.
We here are doing well. We are well away from the major catchment rivers (particularly the Brisbane River, grrrrr). We have a creek close by, but it would take at least twice as much flooding for that to be a factor. The flooding of the Brisbane River should not be called a natural disaster. We have a huge dam (capacity greater than Sydney Harbour) whose primary function is to hold floodwaters. Right up until the rain started, the decision makers were holding all the water and proudly declaring the dam to be approaching 100% capacity. It is now approaching 200% capacity and we are being told that the flooding will be worse than 1974 (the flood that finally prompted the building of the dam so it would never happen again).
You may have noticed a certain tone. I am quite angry that we are facing a catastrophe mostly due to the decisions of our state government's water authority. LowKey 09:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
People have been pretty panicky about food staples. Supermarkets have been emptied of bread, milk and meat. My brother commutes to Ipswich from Boonah (1/2 hour or so away) and couldn't get home today, so is staying with a friend. His three kids are staying with our parents. One of best friends lives downstream from Toowoomba, and is stuck watching the water rise on their property, hoping it doesn't get to the house. Pretty much everybody who is safe at home is staying at home watching the news. Ironically, the biggest problem for many is going to be finding sufficient water that is drinkable. I read tonight that 75% of Queensland has been disaster declared. LowKey 12:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear from you; I hope things improve ASAP. Sterile 12:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


A big clean up today. There were in fact so many volunteers that Brisbane City at least couldn't cope. Ipswich seemed more "grass roots" with people just going wherever they thought they could be of use. We took food and cold drinks to a few of the areas that were flooded. So many people had everything that they own in the world piled up on the footpath waiting to be taken away as refuse, including the carpets, ceilings and interior walls. At least one insurance company has been reported to be quibbling over its definitions of flooding already. LowKey 11:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


An interesting read, the comments are at least as interesting as the article. LowKey 02:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many comments to go through and figure out which are the interesting ones!
There's an article from The Australian here.
Andrew Bolt has written on this several times, including this one quoting (of all people) Germaine Greer (with added comments), and this one where he reproduces the full report of the engineer the Courier Mail is quoting. In the Germaine Greer one, follow also the link on the word "pardon" for more.
Contrary(?) to your comments above, I gather that the dam was intended for both water supply and flood mitigation, and that "100% full" means the water supply part, whereas it was designed to hold up to about the same amount again for flood mitigation (which they came so close to they had to do an emergency release). So the problem is not that they allowed it to get up to "100%", but that they allowed it to go over that without releasing the excess quickly enough.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The dam is built for both detention (flood mitigation) and storage (supply) of water (+hydro electricty supply), but the reason for building it and thus its primary purpose is detention of flood waters, like the Somerset Dam before it. "100% capacity" refers to the storage capacity for supply. For quite some time this level has been criticised on the basis that we need more detention capacity. Generally the call is for the designated supply capacity to be reduced to 60% of the current designation. With the January rains, the detained water really could not have been released any more quickly without causing the flooding that the detention is intended to prevent (eventually that is exactly what happened). If the "storage" had been held at a lower volume as a matter of SOP then the release could have been at a lesser rate and also could have been further reduced to accommodate the floodwaters from the Lockyer and the Bremer. Also, with the very wet season that we knew was coming, it is arguable that that the level should have been reduced to 40% or lower in anticipation. We know from experience that even moderately heavy rain can add a year or more worth of supply in a few days. Unfortunately our last drought actually directly effected the Brisbane townees, who thus caught the water storage bug, and our State Government has seen water as a salable commodity. In fact our water authority currently lists Wivenhoe's primary purpose as water supply - playing silly buggers with history and showing that there may be a conflict of interest. We need more dams for water storage, but our next one is in nimby limbo. LowKey 22:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. by law anything in flood storage must be released within 7 days. LowKey 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


I have just read Greer's article as quoted by Bolt. It's a bit misleading in that it implies that the dam was allowed to fill up to 190% of supply capacity (i.e. about 90% of total capacity) by the time the rains came, which is not the case. The flood storage from the previous rain had not yet been totally released, but the dam level was at about 103% of supply capacity when the major rain event occurred (i.e. barely above what it would have been anyway). The “pardon?” links all seem to be Bolt’s comments, and mostly 2011. It makes his point about Greer’s erroneous claim, but he is far from the only one and certainly not the first. Apart from previously mentioned issues, there is also the fact that water supply & use has changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the required storage volume. We have a “water grid” to allow transfer of water between dams, house tanks have gone from outlawed to mandated, water conservation measures have been imposed, and city folk have finally learned that water doesn’t just come from the tap.

On another note, we had another thunderstorm yesterday. Took me 2:45 to get home from work. My regular rail line was out of commission last week due to being submerged. Then when sufficient repairs had been completed to open the line yesterday, the thunderstorm dropped overhead power lines and trees across the track. This morning some truck crashed into something (never did find out the details) and the line was closed again. LowKey 02:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are getting walloped. Sterile 10:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a picture that you might like to see, if you haven't already. You might like to look at a report I've put on my own talk page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit break 18/02/11

I agree with this article - although "political opportunism" is a dangerous comment for Jeff Seeney to make (regardless of its accuracy) LowKey 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and block me

I don't care. Sterile 21:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

me too, your boss Phil has run amuck with deleting anything he doesnt like. He has also what I call oversighted deletions by altering the visibility of things. I am not a sysop or bueracrat so I cant see what he has done, I assume from his public conduct that he has doing much more than I can see and has shown by his character that he cannot be trusted. Your threats are just typical, you cant be civil, (you insist on using atheist as a moralless murdering rapist without actually saying it outriight) you wont disagree with your boss so you try to bully your way into a position of power.
it makes you and Phil appear to be gutless bullying cowards. Admit your position and just BAN everyone who disagrees with any creationist piosition and be done4 with it.
why arent you editing articles ? it seems from the recent changes that you just op in to be phils bully boy. --Unsigned comment by Hamster (talk)

So many problems in a such a short post. I will dot point, with tq, responses for clarity.

  • your boss Phil has run amuck with deleting anything he doesnt like - nonsense, there is plenty here that Philip does not like and has not deleted. Conclusion: False accusation.
  • He has also what I call oversighted deletions by altering the visibility of things - then you are misusing "oversight".
  • I am not a sysop or bueracrat so I cant see what he has done - I can see what has been done, and the only visibility changes are to "hide" offensive language in posts, usernames, edit summaries etc.
  • I assume from his public conduct that he has doing much more than I can see - So you are happy repeatedly assert your assumptions of wrongdoing as fact. Conclusion: Your accusations are baseless.
  • you cant be civil, (you insist on using atheist as a moralless murdering rapist without actually saying it outriight - More accusations, again without any examples or evidence.
  • you wont disagree with your boss - not my boss anyway, but if you actually look - even at the recent etiquette discussion - you will see that I am quite able, and willing, to disagree.
  • Admit your position - why "admit" something I have stated outright. My position is as I have stated it.
  • why arent you editing articles - I am. Not in a big way, because I haven't had much time to do so in-depth. I have been working on a couple off-wiki. What little time I have has been taken with seeing off our spammer, and trying to resolve an issue that you apparently would rather complain about than resolve. LowKey 03:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
As I have just explained on Hamster's user page, we don't have the "Oversighting" extension, but instead use the built-in ability to hide certain things. However, all these actions to hide are in visible logs, although of course you can't see what has been hidden, just that it has been. (Also, you need to skip all the spammer page deletions in that list.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Hamster keeps intimating (and outright claiming) "oversight" in the "no history" sense. I recall some time ago actually asking Sterile to check a couple of offensive posts that I hid to confirm that the content was hidden, but the hiding event was logged and showed the reason. Hamster's suspicion (although stated as fact) might carry more weight if it was likewise expressed at RW, where content etc is also hidden. LowKey 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
With all the post deletions things can get very hard to find or even remember. It's seems like a deceptive tactic. Womprfirst 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean like these ones? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that those deletions make things hard to find or that they seem like a deceptive tactic? Teh Terrible Asp 02:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to Womprfirst's comment about things getting very hard to find. Sorry for the ambiguity. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you think there was anything particularly important in my deletions that you think you'd like to go back later and find? Teh Terrible Asp 02:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
(EC) My page, so I am playing, too. Asp, I would say that those deletions make things somewhat hard to find because they are not on the page but have to be found in the history - but archiving does a similar thing (although maybe not quite to the same degree) so it's not a problem as far as I am concerned - more a case of less relevent = less convenient to find. I don't think that those deletions seem deceptive. Also, anyone that felt a deleted thread was still relevant could have restored it to you talk page (again, much like archived content). As to "all the post deletions" that Womprfirst mentions, a bit more specificity is in order. If it refers to the same deletions that Hamster has been complaining about for some time; there is no deception involved and they should be hard to find because of their offensive content. If it refers to the deletions on Philip's talk page, "deceptive" certainly does not apply, and "all those" is an exaggeration, and again the thing deleted is obviously not intended to be in plain view (hence the deletion - in fact that could be said of any deletion). LowKey 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I was simply pointing out that if someone wants to complain about my recent talk-page deletions (which I took it that Womprfirst was referring to) on the grounds that things can get very hard to find, then they are ignoring the larger number of deletions by others, such as you on your talk page, which would be just as hard to find. In neither case has anyone made a case that there is a need to find them. But, seeing you ask, yes, I might one day want to find where you have been required to substantiate an allegation you made, which was deleted in the first of those links.
Archives are different because the advanced search (as well as mainstream search engines) will find things in archive pages, but not in histories.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey LowKey

Good to see you are back. Some people on RW were claiming you had abandoned this place. Maratrean 09:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply extremely busy and haven't had time. Many people on RW make irrational claims about a lot of things. LowKey 23:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, many of them like to take a glass half-empty approach to everything except themselves. This place could be more active, but at least it's not tearing itself to shreds, like RW has been busy doing lately... Maratrean 10:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Not raptured, are you? Sterile 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I went to the doctor, and he said... Hang on; that's an "a". Nah, just VERY busy with work (and there is nothing rapturous about it). LowKey 06:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks LowKey for voting for my membership! Maratrean 10:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget...

Download Msn For Blackberry Free Sterile 23:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I had missed it, fixed now. LowKey 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving?

I think I'm supposed to ask you to leave as a RationalWikian, although I'm not sure. sterile in limbo Sterile 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you are jesting, because I do not believe you are stupid. LowKey 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently I must be some sort of "ring leader," 'cause Philip thinks I have some ability to get people to leave. in limbo 23:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Since this is ongoing at Philip's talk page, I'll say no more here. LowKey 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an Email from Wikipedia. I hope that you can help. --Michaeldsuarez 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Rationalwiki Article

Is there a way to clean up the article so my essential point still stands? Any RW watcher will appreciate the wisdom of my addition, and I believe it is a fair analysis of its current movement. Analyst 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I already did that. The rest is, as I indicated, an editorial essay. I began an attempt to "clean up" your addition but after removing the informal language, speculation and editorialising, neologistic nicknaming, misrepresentation of motives and roles - including a rather blatant post hoc ergo propter hoc that implies that RW's censure is without reason, or is a response to criticism alone - what was left was, well, what I left. LowKey 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Remarkable. I smell mixed motives here. You are a member of Rationalwiki, are you not? I agree my language was rather informal but the point remains that Rationalwikians are highly reactionary, they seek disciplinary measures at the slightest hint of disapproval or lack of ideological conformity. Analyst 21:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I smelled mixed motives in the article, which is part of why I cleaned it up. I had two motives in the cleanup. Firstly to keep an encyclopaedia article as an encyclopaedia article, and secondly to head off an aSK article being used as an attack platform against the editors at RW (or any other site). Your "point that remains" is actually more like 3 points, and they are variously debatable - thus not suitable for encylopaedic entry as-is.
  1. "Rationalwikians" - as a whole? most? some? the leaders? Is this a sufficient trend to apply to the site as a whole? Source material?
  2. "highly reactionary" - personally I agree, and with a few examples this could probably be folded back into the point remaining in the article.
  3. "they seek disciplinary measures at the slightest hint of disapproval or lack of ideological conformity" - not at the "slightest hint"; also the same questions as the first point.
As to being a RW member, only in the broadest possible meaning of the concept. See my RWW page (and talk) about this, as I only a very short time ago discussed exactly this. Also, see my RW edit history and rights history. If you are implying that because I have an account RW I am some kind of RW sympathiser then you are discarding any claim to credibility. I often say of RW, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story," and I think it somewhat applies your "I smell mixed motives here" comment. LowKey 04:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want my view (and I am sure that you do) the whole article should be deleted as lacking in sufficient note. I mean seriously? You've got an article on Rationalwiki but no article on Queen Victoria? Likewise, you've got an article on Conservapedia but no article on the Renaissance? A little perspective is required here. --Horace 06:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That's the nature of an open encyclopædia—the articles will reflect the interests of the contributors, unfortunately. But the solution is to add the missing articles rather than delete existing ones. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

...

Thanks for you help and sorry about the mess on your RW page. RationalWiki's a mess (and that is a criticism). The younger crowd seems more obsessed with cursing and defending each other than doing anything productive. I've about given up over there. in limbo 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

I wrote this article. It is pretty much about the U.S. version, which is the parent version of the show as well. However, as this a largely Australian site, I suppose there should be something about that adaptation, what it's called, etc. Any thoughts are appreciated.--Colonel Sanders 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is an Australian version. There was once but it didn't last long. There is currently a British show of the same name but I think it relates to a number of kids being chased across the continent by aliens. --Horace 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What Horace said. Also, considering how much of Oz TV content is imported there should not be any issue with this. LowKey 00:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I just feel a bit awkward being an American editing an Australian wiki, but I suppose that' not a problem!--Colonel Sanders 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SamCoulter's articles from Ameriwiki

I don't think they have an official copyright policy yet. As a bureaucrat there, I know that there shouldn't be a problem copying from AW, it's just the process this site has copying to here. I copied a few of my articles from WP on AW, and they didn't seem to have a problem with it.--Colonel Sanders 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest that there might be a problem from AW's end about the copying, just that our "copy to" process could quite be different to what Sam was used to. LowKey 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Seems rather complicated, but I see what you mean.--Colonel Sanders 00:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

speedy

There's this one too. Sterile 16:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Gone. Thanks. LowKey 23:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

plain text email address

I think there were only two revisions that had the plaintext form of MacRae's address:

Maybe you should at least make those two disappear. —Awc 11:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Once I realised that it was more than one revision I really didn't look much further just yet. I did have second thoughts about hiding the revisions, though. If the information is publicly available elsewhere in some form (even if it takes a little finding) then I think that your deletion would suffice and revision hiding would not be necessary. Of course, if as the posting editor you really would prefer that it be hidden, then I am willing to do so. LowKey 12:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I do have a niggling concern about the plain-text address in the history, and that is that I can't rule out a bot scanning old versions. A while back the site was shut down by the host because of it using too much CPU time, and the culprit seemed to be the search engines (Google, etc.) indexing all old versions of articles, simply because they were following "history" links (and probably most non-current pages were not cached, so the server had to generate them for every search). I stopped that with suitable entries in the robots.txt file that tells search engines to ignore them, but of course that only applies to search engines that respect the instructions in that file, which an e-mail search bot may well not do.
I was also thinking that hiding the revisions would make it look like I posted Andrew MacRae's response, but thinking more about it, that may only be the case with the older system I used on Conservapedia and not the more-refined version we use here, so hiding them may not be quite the issue I was concerned about.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. A Google search for the e-mail address shows that it does exist in about 60 other places(!), and although many of them are in pdf files (I have no idea whether e-mail bots search pdfs), not all are. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving stuff to Ameriwiki

Hi. Despite having done some really immature edits here, I did wrote some descent stuff. This place seems to be dying, so I am going to take my articles to Ameriwiki. However, most of them were copyedited either by you or by Philip, since frankly my english grammar is kind of bad. I would like to take the improved version of the articles to Ameriwiki, if that is fine for you. If it is not, I will just take my original version. --Tonatiuh 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

For my own part, you are welcome to have any of my copyedits incorporated into your original. To copy the whole updated articles, you would need permission from the site - meaning permission from the site owner; Philip. He's been off-wiki for a while, though, so you may need to wait a bit for that.
I would, however, like to quote a fairly wise fellow

What you're doing is the opposite of helping.— Shrek

LowKey 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As the resident "expert" (a bureaucrat at Ameriwiki), I say that we welcome new content. However, LowKey (and our green ogre friend) makes a good point: why give up on this site? As a Member here, I haven't given up. Sure, activity seems to have stagnated, and most of the action in RC is the warding off of the inevitable spambots. But that doesn't mean we should give up. I recommend you first request permission from Philip when he comes back online. If he declines, I will be more than glad to copyedit your originals on AW.--Colonel Sanders 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I've been a bit quiet lately (something that will change very soon), as far as I'm concerned, this site is not dead, and I wouldn't like you to take your articles to AmeriWiki. However, I can't stop you doing what you want with your own material of course. As for copyedits by others, please read aSK:Copying from other sites#Copying minor edits by others which is about copying to this site, but applies equally in reverse. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I actually gave up to this site since long ago. My problem was that most edits were into endless debates at talk pages. I respect that, but is certainly not a place I would like to spend my time writing articles for. As per the link you posted, I will be very careful not to copy any edits made by others that are not spelling or grammar corrections. --Tonatiuh 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandal/spammer pages

I ask that you remove the vandal/spammer pages, as there is currently an excess of them. I blocked the vandal/spammers, and tagged their silly "insertions", but only being a Member, I cannot delete the garbage. Greatly appreciated. Thanks!--Colonel Sanders 01:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I took a day off from shooing the pests and look what happens. LowKey 02:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you close account creation for a while?--Tonatiuh 03:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a baby/bathwater thing. I don't think I have sufficient access for that, anyway. LowKey 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Replies

I replied to your queries here, and here. --Elvis is King 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They weren't queries; they were statements. I stand by them. LowKey 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I still stand by the statement that it was NOT copied from Amerifauxconservativeswiftwiki. It was from the other, but I will create a fresh article here and am in the process of doing so per order. I hope that this site will gain some valuable content on the King of Rock n' Roll! --Elvis is King 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry buddy

Tis I, Ace. MaxFletcher 00:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. Prove it.
  2. If true, thanks so much for tying up even more of what little time I have.
LowKey 00:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that I'll ever agree that Conservapedia had the balance right between blocking suspected trouble-makers and being fair, but some people seem determined to show that Conservapedia's hard line was justified. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd still rather go out of our way to be fair, even knowing that some will take advantage. Of course I will probably still get annoyed when they do. LowKey 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame the two of you have to waste so much time with spammers and trolls. I'm not sure I would be so patient. —Awc 12:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The spammers don't actually take much time. The trolls, on the other hand... Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

vandals

I have blocked a vandal and reverted some of his editing. Please block him for longer if that is what you want. I have not fixed all his changes, just the goatse stuf on your page and Zachys page. your frinedly fluffy Hamster, his mark x

Ta buckets. LowKey (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I am hiding the revision texts to be on the safe side. LowKey (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
another vandal. I have blocked him and reverted a few of his edits. You may want to turn off editing for a while Hamster (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox