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:Sterile

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contents

Good advice

I've been trying to go more on the advice of, "Only stay where you're valued." [1] I really didn't intend to stay more than a couple days, any way. All is good. Steriletalk 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Flat Earth

I am seeing a lot of stuff on youtube about flat earth, proofs and diagrams with the firmament dome, the sun and moon orbiting above the surface and such. Have you noticed a resurgance of this concept ? Hamster (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't, but then again, I haven't quite been looking. Sterileserial troublemaker 20:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading my portrait

Thank you for uploading my portrait, Sterile. You are clean and good. H.E.L.P.eR (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Membership has its privileges. ~~,~

Formal warning

Um, OK. Sorry to bother you, I guess. I already told you that you were trying to make a point that has nothing to do with Roland, but you ignored that and persisted anyway, including by telling this lie: Philip claims I singe handedly ruinded his wiki by stopping unidentifiable users from making productive edits. I never claimed that you "ruinded (sic) his wiki", nor that you did anything single-handedly (nor that the users were "unidentfiable"). So these postings here on Roland's page are just more trouble-making, which I did accuse you of. This is a formal warning to stop making trouble or you will be blocked again. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is formal notice of the warning I've posted here. You are being given a 1-second block as a record of this warning. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This hyperbolic statement (you do recognize I'm exaggerating, right?) is largely in response to "I said that the [good editors] ones that were here have left. Second, according to what I understand, you are stopping them, simply by all your criticism." I will point out there is no support for this statement, and from my perspective, I have no way to identify the "good editors" who I "stopped" with my "criticism." I can't defend myself against this claim, since it's made without your telling me who these editors are and what they said, which is a funny sense of justice. If "unidentifiable" is taken in a literal "someone can identify them sense", then I will take you at the literal sense of "stop" and say I cannot stop anyone from editing other than blocking them, which I did not do. Posting "criticism" does not stop someone from editing. Does that give me a right to call you a liar? I don't think so. I also think that does imply you are saying I ruined your wiki, although that does have a touch of exaggeration to it, and certainly single-handedly certainly does. If you wish to frame that as a "lie", then so be it. But it has some basis in what you do indeed say, and in way that's impossible for me to defend. Sterileserial troublemaker 16:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I will point out there is no support for this statement… I don't need to support a statement that says …according to what I understand…. That is what I understand, correctly or not. I'm not making a claim about facts, but about my understanding of something.
Posting "criticism" does not stop someone from editing. You're right, but of course, the point of my statement was not to claim that you were stopping them, but to reject your claim that you weren't. The sequence went like this (omitting a lot else):
  • Me: …part of it [why it's "quiet"] would be that the critics discouraged the genuine contributors…
  • I subsequently identified you as one of the critics.
  • You: And to "good editors" waiting in the wings, please, go ahead and take over. I'm not stopping you.
  • Me: …according to what I understand, you are stopping them, simply by all your criticism. (emphasis in original)
So it was you who introduced the term "stopping them". I used those word in my reply because you used them, but the point of my reply is that, in my understanding, your criticisms are (in part) responsible; the point was not about stopping per se. Note that I emphasised "are", not "stopping".
I also think that does imply you are saying I ruined your wiki… I think it's downplaying it to then claim merely that that does have a touch of exaggeration to it.
…certainly single-handedly certainly does. That's not exaggeration; that's contrary to what I actually said.
If you wish to frame that as a "lie", then so be it. I can understand some hyperbole and exaggeration at times, in the right circumstances, but your statement, with three such "exaggerations" in the space of 16 words isn't excusable exaggeration or hyperbole, it's outright misrepresentation. And of course this warning is on top of (a) you already being a troublemaker (in the sense that you have caused trouble in the past, and been blocked a number of times), and (b) carrying your beef with me onto another user's page. If someone who had been a good editor and had not caused any problems had made your statement, I would more likely overlook it. But that is not the case with you.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your civil response to this.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Third-party comment

any action by PJR as Umpire is improper and an abuse of power because he is directly involved. I would protest to the committee but thats PJR as well. Hamster (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
In order to show that I have abused my power you need to show that what I've done is unreasonable; that Sterile has not in fact done what he's accused of, or that there is nothing wrong with it. I note that you have done neither of those, instead exercising the freedoms I give you here to malign me, while saying nothing about Sterile's actions. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Only permitted witnes, jury , prosecutor and Judge. That sets the state for abuse and that is what you do. The only difference between you and the Westboro church is that they actually believe and act in accordance with those beliefs, you dont have the courage. You are not a theologian, you have no basis for commenting on science or religion and yet you have claimed to know the mind of God, utter hubris.
at least have the guts to ban what you seem to say are troublemakers, without some pathetic justifications and let the world see how your website flourishes then. If CMI wont even support your efforts its hard to see who might. Hamster (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
exercising the freedoms I give you here to malign me, while saying nothing about Sterile's actions Sterile has taken no actions that I find violate a wikis general terms. I dont care if you dont like them personally because you have been thrown off of several wikis for misconduct, in short not an example to any editor. You even rudely told one representative of a christian group, that you couldnt trust anyone, christian or not, to edit without your direct oversight. You are not running a wiki, you are running an opinion blog. Hamster (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Only permitted witnes, jury , prosecutor and Judge. No, only current one.
That sets the state for abuse and that is what you do. It might set the stage, but it doesn't follow that that's what I do, and my specific point was that you haven't shown that I do. Yet you here repeat the accusation. You are skating on thin ice.
The only difference between you and the Westboro church is that they actually believe and act in accordance with those beliefs, you dont have the courage. That ice is getting thinner. There are many other differences between me and them; you are just being insulting.
You are not a theologian, you have no basis for commenting on science or religion… Where is it written that only formally-trained-in-the-subject people can comment? Of course, it isn't. This is just inventing a criticism.
…yet you have claimed to know the mind of God, utter hubris. No, it's arrogance to claim that someone can't know the mind of God when God has explained Himself.
at least have the guts to ban what you seem to say are troublemakers, without some pathetic justifications… Of course. When I ban, I give valid justifications, not pathetic ones. I'm glad you recognise that. (And if you disagree and make a further unfounded accusation, that ice just might break.)
If CMI wont even support your efforts its hard to see who might. I've just addressed this fallacious claim on H.E.L.P.eR's talk page.
Sterile has taken no actions that I find violate a wikis general terms. So what? He has taken actions that violate this wiki's terms. Your comment is irrelevant.
I dont care if you dont like them personally… You should, because they are the rules of this site. Violate them enough and you will be "thrown off".
…because you have been thrown off of several wikis for misconduct, in short not an example to any editor. Completely untrue. I have not been thrown off any Wiki. Your credibility has been shot. (And I think I have told you that before.)
You even rudely told one representative of a christian group, that you couldnt trust anyone, christian or not, to edit without your direct oversight. I think you have made this claim before, and I have pointed out where you are wrong. Why do you repeat it?
You are not running a wiki, you are running an opinion blog. More gratuitous insult. If you don't like it, leave. Otherwise follow the rules, be civil, and don't make false accusations.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It was the guy who wanted to do a German language version of ASoK. You were quite rude about denyinbg him permission and your reasons were exactly what I have stated. This is a perfect example of why people in power should not be able to adjudicate cases in which they are involved. An honest Judge or umpire would recuse themselves. Hamster (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
falacious claim on CMI ? that claim was made years ago. where are all the CMI people editing this wiki then ? Hamster (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I havew never made a false accusation. You just wont admit any of your most egregious faults.
not thrown off any wiki ? thats an interesting viewpoint I suppose.
I dont give a crap about your opinion of me. I am an elder of my church. I have published papers on theology and social dynamics. I am published as a technical expert on C14 dating and radiometric dating in general. I have a circle of people who value my opinions on several forums and a following for my 3d erotic art. In short a normal life of someone who continued to study and live beyong matriculation in high school.
you do realize that all 4 people you argue with are better qualified than most people you will ever meet , tht is to say PhD holders of accredited Universities. Hamster (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It was the guy who wanted to do a German language version of ASoK. You were quite rude about denyinbg him permission and your reasons were exactly what I have stated. Thanks for reminding me of the circumstances. There was nothing rude about it at all. But no, my reasons were not what you stated. You claimed:
  • You even rudely told one representative of a christian group, that you couldnt trust anyone, christian or not, to edit without your direct oversight.
Contrary to that, I actually said:
  • I'm sure that there would be people who could [give suitable oversight]
I did add that I don't know any that I knew I could trust with that, but that's nothing to do with me giving direct oversight, and doesn't mean that I couldn't trust anyone. Just that I didn't know of any at present.
On top of that key difference, I don't think that there was any indication that he was a representative of a christian group, nor, for that matter, any evidence of his bona fides (I'm not suggesting he wasn't honest, just pointing out that in circumstances like that I'm not going to simply presume his bona fides), nor that he wanted to do one himself.
And I still think I've explained at least some of that to you before.
This is a perfect example of why people in power should not be able to adjudicate cases in which they are involved. It is nothing of the sort.
An honest Judge or umpire would recuse themselves. Assuming that there was someone else suitable available.
falacious claim on CMI ? that claim was made years ago. where are all the CMI people editing this wiki then ? Now you're moving the goalposts from whether or not they endorse the site to whether or not individuals have decided to help out.
I havew never made a false accusation. Yet you made more than one in your previous post.
You just wont admit any of your most egregious faults. You've not shown convincing evidence that I have them.
not thrown off any wiki ? thats an interesting viewpoint I suppose. That's the actual truth. Do you actually dispute it? What Wikis, and what misconduct?
I dont give a [deleted] about your opinion of me. That's obvious, but hardly very Christian.
I am an elder of my church… I have a … following for my 3d erotic art. Assuming your church knows about this, that doesn't say much about your church. And therefore you comments don't impress me much.
In short a normal life of someone who continued to study and live beyong matriculation in high school. But still can't get facts straight, such as me supposedly being thrown off of several wikis for misconduct, let alone admitting your fault in that regard (and others), and have a low view of the Bible.
you do realize that all 4 people you argue with are better qualified than most people you will ever meet , tht is to say PhD holders of accredited Universities. Given that I don't know their qualifications, I can't say that I know that, but (a) I'm not disputing that, and (b) I don't know that it's relevant. For one, this is true of everybody, including you. I'm sure that you (assuming you are telling the truth, which I'm not disputing) are more qualified than most people you will ever meet, simply because you would meet many more lesser qualified ones that the qualified ones you meet. Further, I know more than four PhDs myself, other than the ones I argue with here. That is, it's not as though I am unacquainted with such people.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Premise of abuse

In order to show that I have abused my power you need to show that what I've done is unreasonable; that Sterile has not in fact done what he's accused of, or that there is nothing wrong with it. Abuse in most contexts is the use of power to control. To take the analogy of a man abusing his wife, he might follow her around thereby not giving her "space" or hang on every little comment to find fault when a more reasonable person would be forgiving. Oftentimes abuse leads to a point where her wiggle room to be free to do as she wishes is quite constrained and she cannot see her way out of it. A man can certainly abuse a woman, whether she is "right" or "wrong". As such, I find your statement offensive. Sterileserial troublemaker 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Abuse in most contexts is the use of power to control. No, it's the misuse of power to control. The use of power to control is what governments, their agencies, and bosses properly do all the time.
To take the analogy of a man abusing his wife, he might follow her around thereby not giving her "space" or hang on every little comment to find fault when a more reasonable person would be forgiving. Sounds like some of the people here, who follow me around and hang on every little comment of mine to find fault, including injecting themselves into a proper reprimand of another user.
As such, I find your statement offensive. Then try being a more civil person.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So you agree with me that a claim of abuse has to do with the abuser and little with the abused? Your response wasn't all that helpful. In addition,I would also say that there may be behavior that isn't de jure "wrong" (i.e., prohibited by laws or regulations) that de facto is abuse, and hence the semantic difference that you are trying to make can be ambiguous, or used by abusers to avoid the charges. Also, the presumed "some of the people here" have less power than you do.Sterileserial troublemaker 16:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
PS do you think semantic smackdowns ("use" vs. "misuse") really help draw editors to the site?
including injecting themselves into a proper reprimand of another user. the word there to note is "proper", perhaps the reprimand did not appear proper ? Hamster (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So you agree with me that a claim of abuse has to do with the abuser and little with the abused? No. It has to do with the act of one person against another.
Your response wasn't all that helpful. Then try rereading it and getting the point that abuse involves misuse of power, not use of power, so in order to demonstrate abuse, you have to demonstrate misuse, not merely use. I am being criticised for abuse, with the evidence being that I'm using power, not that I'm misusing it. That is a fundamental difference, which for some reason you consider unhelpful.
In addition,I would also say that there may be behavior that isn't de jure "wrong" (i.e., prohibited by laws or regulations) that de facto is abuse, and hence the semantic difference that you are trying to make can be ambiguous, or used by abusers to avoid the charges. You're both right and wrong. You are right that abuse can be use that is permitted by laws or regulations, but I never claimed otherwise. You are wrong that that particular fact changes anything. There is still a substantive difference, i.e. not a semantic one, between use and misuse.
Also, the presumed "some of the people here" have less power than you do. They have less authority, but that doesn't mean that they have no power to abuse.
PS do you think semantic smackdowns ("use" vs. "misuse") really help draw editors to the site? I don't think this nitpicking of my point draws editors, but as I've pointed out, it's not a semantic smackdown, but pointing out a substantive fault in your argument.
the word there to note is "proper", perhaps the reprimand did not appear proper ? And perhaps it was and you are just trying to throw mud hoping some will stick.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

1000 million = 1 billion

Do you realise that not everyone understand 1000 million as equal to 1 billion? When I was growing up, it didn't mean that here in Oz, and less so in Britain. I think most Aussies do now consider 1000 million = 1 billion, and perhaps Britons do too, but I would hesitate to assume that it's universally understood. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think most of the English-speaking world uses billion like Americans, but you can change it back. I'm not sure why you didn't discuss it there. Sterileserial troublemaker 23:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
My concern wasn't with changing it back—you may be right about how it's currently understood—but more with suggesting that you don't start changing it wherever you find it (i.e. if it's already done the old way, why not leave it), which is why I posted here rather than on that page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Its use on the wiki is not unique. Just saying. Sterileserial troublemaker 00:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Accepted. I think of it a bit like the language issue: do we use American English, British English, Australian English, etc. aSK is like WP in that, for most purposes, if an article was written with one version, it's not accepted that we go and change it to our preferred version of English. Similarly, if an article was written with billions, it can stay that way. If it was written with thousands of millions, it can stay that way. This is not a rule; just a way that I think it would be appropriate to go. So I just wanted to point out that there may be some merit in leaving articles written with thousands of millions that way, rather than changing them for the sake of changing them. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox