User talk:Nerd

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


Troll
This user likes a troll-free talk page. Revert away!




Welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Nerd!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:


Nope[edit]

Not unnecessary. I reverted your edit deleting a huge chunk of my description, I'd prefer to discuss it here rather than undergo an edit war, but part of RW's mission is to provide snarky humor, so while your personal preferences may differ, don't unilaterally delete snarky content. Discuss why you think it should be deleted, and if the mob agrees or disagrees with you, you would take action or not take action depending upon the consensus that results from the discussion. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 18:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read that article in full. And the bit that you are contesting is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Furthermore, it counts as commentary, not news. That is clear by first reading.
As for snark, we do not add snark for the sake of having snark. It is of marginal importance only. This is, after all Rational Wiki, not Snarky Wiki. Nerd (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to revert, then. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 18:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WIGOs, especially in the World section, should be concise and professional. Commentary and snark should be left for talk pages and articles. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all! I will remove it. Nerd (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I begrudgingly remove my complaint, even though I still personally disagree with y'all, the mob differs, and the function of this site is ultimately of more importance than one's personal opinions. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 19:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Il Duce beats me to the finish line. You're fast, man!
@Don Juan I'm not sure if we are really debating opinions here. Nor do I think that is particularly helpful. We are just discussing whether or not a piece of commentary belongs on a particular page. Nerd (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump articles[edit]

I would suggest writing a brief summary of the contents of branch articles and use the Main template to direct readers to them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A fine suggestion. Thank you! But feel free to jump in. I'm getting a bit tired. :-) Nerd (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
That will not be possible, due to the fact that I'm currently editing from my phone and will likely continue to do so for most of the day. When I get back to my computer I'll see what I can do. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries. There is no deadline here. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

On Brain Waves[edit]

So I read that electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space. Is this the same for brain waves? How far outwards from their source can they actually extend? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing two different things here. The electromagnetic field of your brain is not the same thing as brain waves. Using the right equipment, neuroscientists can detect this field. But the equipment has to be close to your brain in order to detect it. It's basically a helmet. Far away, the field weakens to the point of imperceptibility, drowned out by, for example, the Earth's own magnetic field.
Variations within this electromagnetic field can be converted into graph that looks like a seismograph. This is what people mean when they say brain waves. Depending on your activities, there will be different recognizeable brain wave patterns. Nerd (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Lest I forget, yes, electromagnetic fields extend indefinitely in space, but they tend to get weaker away from the source. In physics class, on runs into idealized cases such as an infinite sheet of charge, whose electric field is everywhere constant because you cannot escape an infinite sheet. Such idealizations are useful approximations in some cases, such as in the middle of an electrostatic wipe, but their limitations should be recognized. Nerd (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Does each field have an equal amount of strength and intensity? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Which field? If you are talking about an electromagnetic wave, then its intensity is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude of the oscillating electric field. If you are talking about a neural wave, I have no idea. Nerd (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If you unban yourself[edit]

Never ever ever ever ever "decensor" people accusing other races of being animals. I don't give a goddamn fuck about your reasons. I don't want to see it. You're wrong and need to stop. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

He's all yours[edit]

It's enough of a pain playing whack-a-mole with multiple troll accounts without you undoing blocks before checking what's going on. He's all yours, goodnight! — Unsigned, by: ‎Avida Dollars / talk / contribs

And how do you know he/she is a troll or a sock puppet? Nerd (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Feynman.[edit]

I wish to dispute two changes to the Feynman article. One, the section concerning Feynman's "dating tips" to put it politely. As woo based beliefs these "tips" are within RationalWiki's purview to analyze and criticize, regardless of who holds them. Secondly, I feel the section concerning the Manhattan Project should be restored as a brief summation, with the bulk of the content moved to the main subject article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Done! Feyman's "dating tips" weren't dating tips. He talked about them, how he learned, applied and abandoned them. I read that book in full actually. It was hilarious but that part was just weird. That part will have to be rewritten. Nerd (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case the article should more clearly reflect his renouncement of those views, preferably with more sources for that section. Thank you for your understanding on this matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you happen to have access to a library? Could you help fix that bit? My plate is full at the moment. Nerd (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I found a PDF of the book in question for use in sourcing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! Happy reading and editing! Nerd (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)