Help talk:Contents

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

I love this website[edit]

I think you guys are doing great work. I'm a dyed in the wool liberal secular atheist so its refreshing to see some sanity on the internet.. i do have a request for my brethren/fellow travelers.. I made a website and am trying to develope a kind of secular religion/life philosophy.. some of it disagrees with certain aspects of traditional science but over all i think its pretty sound. is there anyway you guys can help me promote it? specifically with talk pages bashing it and an article so the google webbots will index it? id appreciate it and again.. thanks you guys you really are doing good work. my site. — Unsigned, by: 104.235.215.150 / talk / contribs

Bot[edit]

I'd like to ask some users to help me with editing multiple pages of the Annotated Quran. Which webpage should I do it on? ShabiDOO 02:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Some Issues[edit]

Would it be possible to change Rollback to have a user preference, not the default setting, to confirm the rollback? A couple of times I've screwed this up because my fat fingers hit the wrong link. Could be because I use a mobile.

Is it poor etiquette to not mark an edit as minor without giving a reason? Just because I think it's obvious doesn't necessarily mean others don't. Combined with the previous issue maybe the answer is for me to take better effort to avoid rollback at all costs.

Twice I've received alerts that a watch list item has been linked to somewhere else, but when I check the fossil record the link doesn't even show as being deleted, much less linked in the first place. Just curious.

Sometimes when I mark a page as patrolled it still shows on Recent Changes as !. Antigem (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Rollback is a function specifically designed to avoid confirmation - and there is no such thing in the Preferences. I don't know how much thought has been put into making things easier on mobile here. Maybe I can have a look at how to do it with adaptive CSS, but I'm not sure how often things are changed on MediaWiki:Common.css or by whom, and to be honest, I'm probably too lazy to do anything unless other people show interest.
As far as edit summaries are concerned, first off, I don't know. Secondly, you're definitely not doing anything wrong by always adding an edit summary. Thirdly, I operate under the assumption that most minor edits aren't worth an edit summary. Minor edits shouldn't be about content anyway, rather about formatting and such.
Yes, this happened to me as well and I turned notifications off. I think the reason for that are templates including random articles, so it might have been generated for one user, but once you're accessing the page, it will be a different random page, given a large enough category. Not sure, though.
This kind of sounds like the server cache not having been refreshed - or your browser cache. Have you tried overriding your cache yet?
RSamys (bla) 13:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Contribution to talk page marked as spam[edit]

Not spam. What do I do? — Unsigned, by: Morpheos / talk / contribs

@Morpheos Try taking it to RationalWiki:Technical support. --RWRW (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to ask for help on RationalWiki:Technical support. Maybe I am stupid.
On another topic is RationalWiki dying? It seems from my qualitative experience that contributions peaked around the early 2010s. There don't seem to be articles on recent issues. — Unsigned, by: Morpheos / talk / contribs
That is strange. I posted something about it for you. As for the second point I don't really know. I have only been here just over a year. --RWRW (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Had no idea my public IP would be an issue. Can we put it in my user account instead?[edit]

I recently created the Suspicious0bservers page and I have become nervous about retribution from the followers of that gunk. Can the post be attributed to this account? Or can it be removed and re-posted by me?

Anything you can do to help protect my privacy. I am sorry for not fully understanding how this all worked. I saw I could post, and I didn't think twice (been wanting a debunk page on that clown for a long time).

Thanks for the help.

-Angela N. — Unsigned, by: Realist4 / talk / contribs

I'm pretty sure the Techs will answer about attribution for you. Also, when you write a message here, always use a signature by typing four tildes at the end. -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is everyone on here anonymous?[edit]

What is the reason that people on here are so anonymous? RationalWiki wants to be a reputable source for reason and logic, and yet it is composed of anonymous contributors, lessening the credibility of the entire site. Why won't authors post their real names? Especially given the numerous articles on here that skewer public individuals, scientists (or crack-scientists as you call them) by name, it is a bit immature to skewer someone publicly with an internet meme. At least the person being skewered had the guts to go public with their stance and put their name behind it, and then get rebutted by unnamed anonymous people makes this site less credible in my opinion. I'd love to know the actual names of the people who write articles on here, until that happens, my opinion of this site is basically this: A site full of pseudointellectuals too scared to put their real names to the content they are writing about. For example, look at all the profane anger on this page here: http://rationalwiki.nom.pw/wiki/Talk:Doxing F-bombs gallore, very angry people yelling and screaming. It shows me (the end user) that behind all the dispassionate semantic prose on the front of the articles, are angry people bubbling with hostile emotion, full of presuppositions and biases, and who use every ounce of self control to craft a document that doesn't scream with emotion. And yet, even when I read some of your articles (the front side), I can sense extreme emotion seeping through the false attempt at being dispassionate and logical. For example, I really enjoyed the extra anger on this page here: http://rationalwiki.nom.pw/wiki/Peanut_butter_argument in the first paragraph where the atheist author (anonymous, of course) writes, "Really, the only way this argument could cause nightmares is in how traumatically bad of an argument it is." Hah, that was entertaining, to say the least, and an objective reader can almost feel the emotions squeezing out of the author (don't take this as a defense of the absurd argument in that article but instead my point is that authors here can't help themselves from pouring emotion into their writing, a sign of an amateur philosopher) — Unsigned, by: 76.121.121.75 / talk / contribs

I am anonymous because the internet can be dangerous, stalkers, doxers, and hackers. Also with your name people can find your location and other personal info. Commie Lib (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
But am I right in saying (and I'm not sure, but just suspecting) that most people who frequently use this site are atheists, and because they are non-religious that there would be nothing to fear? I mean, if religion is the major cause for violence in the world, we should have far less to worry about having our names on a skeptic/atheistic website than, for example, names on a religious website? I'm just speculating here. Plus if we want to be credible sources, (like a journalist or researcher, for example), a name is required, else you cannot really be considered very credible. I mean no disrespect to anyone here, but it seems like a credibility issue if an entire site is composed of anonymous writing, and then the site as a whole wants to be credible when all of its particulars are written by unknown sources.— Unsigned, by: 76.121.121.75 / talk / contribs
Anonymous users are not credible. That's why we're expected to cite sources. Also, Rationalwiki does not intend to be a dispassionate and unbiased source. If something is fucking stupid, we'll call it fucking stupid. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
what a friendly welcome. With that, I'm out. — Unsigned, by: 76.121.121.75 / talk
You could say the same for wikipedia. Also giving out names is the first thing you learn not to do on the internet. Commie Lib (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right, I hate pseudo-intellectuals who don't use their real name. Never accomplish anything that way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
See also the many suspicious monikers in Category:YouTube. --Annanoon (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, youtube is an even more base and depraved form of communication than being a fucking wiki editor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Formatting Help[edit]

I am trying to format Template:User Texan2 to make the words fit into an area the same size as the flag just like on any other userbox. Can anyone help me with this? Summa Atheologica (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Denied changes made to page: http://rationalwiki.nom.pw/wiki/Allah[edit]

Hey,

I made an addition to the page mentioned above, under the section "Gender of Allah." I simply wanted reason for it's refusal by User: Matty the Damned.

The original text read, "Unlike the Christians and Jews who generally refer to God as male, Allah is neither male nor female. In fact, it is a specific blasphemy to call Allah 'male' or 'female.' Allah is at one time both and neither. Because of the nature of Arabic, when a pronoun for Allah is used, it must be the male pronoun, huwa, but this is based on the gender of the word, and not the fact that it is a 'male' thing.[note 1]"

My edited text corrected a falsity, as Learned Christians and Jews both know that God transcends sex and would also call it blasphemy to attribute to him a proper sex. It read:

"Unlike the Christians and Jews who might refer to God as male, conflating gender in language with sex or the Incarnation with the transcendent divine, (though not all Christians or Jews do this - CCC 239 specifically reads, "[...] The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible [...] We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. [...]"), Allah is neither male nor female. In fact, it is a specific blasphemy to call Allah "male" or "female." Allah is at one time both and neither. Because of the nature of Arabic, when a pronoun for Allah is used, it must be the male pronoun, huwa, but this is based on the gender of the word, and not the fact that it is a "male" thing.[note 1]"

I would appreciate that all peoples be treated fairly and that faith groups not be ascribed doctrine or belief without proper citation, something above given.

For citation, here is an online english translation of the section of the Cathechism within which this Christian doctrine is clearly defined:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

I would appreciate your help — Unsigned, by: Theokid12 / talk / contribs

You put this in the wrong place: either on the talk page of the page in question (Allah?) or the talk page of the user who you're mentioning (Matt the Damned?). Oh and sign your posts please. Scream!! (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Why can't I edit WIGO (What's going on in the world)?[edit]

I would like to make new entries in WIGO, but the "View Source" page tells me that I don't have permission to edit this page.

I have a RationalWiki account, so why can't I edit this page? — Unsigned, by: Louis1643 / talk / contribs

Due to excessive vandalism in the past and the secondary issues that causes, WIGOs are restricted to users who have been around for a little and made enough edits to show that they're genuine. I believe the talk pages don't have that restriction if you have a suggestion. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

RINO Page is Broken[edit]

A user is submitting an edit claiming that Ted Cruz is a RINO. The whole claim is based on a fallacy. This user claims that Ted Cruz is a RINO because Bob Dole CLAIMS he is a RINO. How can this Wiki posit to be "Rational" when entire pages are dedicated to ad hominem attacks? In fact, when approached in a logical way, the entirety of the RINO page is dubious. We need better standards if we are going to hold claims to be credible.— Unsigned, by: TedCruzIsNotA RINO / talk / contribs

Calm down. The section that was added to is titled "Republicans accused of being RINOs". Nobody here is saying the claim isn't ridiculous or that Ted Cruz is anything but a wingnut, but the accusations nonetheless seem to be out there. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed a trend of single issue users posting comments pleading for more "rationality" and attempting to appeal to the ingroup with statements like "We need better standards if we are going to hold claims to be credible." in the same breath, all while appearing completely tone deaf? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)