User talk:Tarantallegra

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Tarantallegra!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Any questions? Please see the help page or ask me on my talk page.

Hey there... Tar An Tal Le-Gra! Welcome to the rabidly insidiously meditating rain meter of the fiddlenet! Hope you enjoy your stay! Javasca₧ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?! 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, hello... Are you named after that pokemon? SJ Debaser 13:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Or more likely, the Tom Waits song? "Well, you play that Tarantella, all the hounds they start to roar..." I just think you might have some spelling issues, is all. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Is your first name Michael? Your username looks like his last name.. "METAL GEAR!!" Silly Mr. Cat 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I assumed he named himself after the spell in Harry Potter that makes people dance uncontrollably. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's Sophie Fisher (joke to make Shot info's life hard). SuspectedReplicant's got it right. Tarantallegra (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether to be happy I got it right, or sad that I'm wasting valuable brain space with the names of all the Harry Potter spells... SuspectedReplicant (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL, yeah. Hey, do you know if those rumors that you can live fine with just a little bit of your brain are true, or urban myths? I heard about people who have only a little brain on the stem, and some with the whole middle taken out. And they adapted. Tarantallegra (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Meh, not my fault she put a link to her facebook page on her wikiblog :-) Shot info (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that is much lolality. BTW, people who maintain attack sites against WP editors tend to lose their WP editing privileges ;-) Shot info (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Welcome to RationalWiki, you are now a janitor. The rule are pretty much as follows. Don't block anyone that is not a sysop, unless it is really funny. Use the vandal break on actual vandals. Don't delete or protect a page unless you discuss it on the talkpage first. You shouldn't need to protect any way. Don't use hide/show unless it is to hide personal information, such as, home address or phone etc. I do occasionally check the logs, yes I have that little to do, and you will here from me if you use it inappropriately. Don't edit or remove talkpage comments from any talkpage without archiving, that includes this one which is community property and we shall all come along and defecate on it shortly. Please read RationalWiki:Community standards and RationalWiki:Sysop guide, one person actually did once and found that it was full of spelling errors. Simple rule, tell someone what you are doing before you do it, that way when the lynch mob is after you for deleting the main page we know why. - π 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue with RW[edit]

And what is it, exactly? Creating "POV", which may be wikipediaspeak, without even defining it as "point of view" is utterly lame. Edit warring at public school is utterly lame. Did we cross swords in some way with what you thought we are here for, somehow? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Example: Your first edit to public school [1] totally messed up the article. Look at it and tell me what you added made sense. The diff you left was a mucked up mess. So I fixed it. And researched and fixed it even more. And yet, you seem to have, well, an agenda... but I might be wrong. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
True, it messed it up. It was a mistake. However, perhaps if you'd given me more than 2 min, I would have caught it myself. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I reloaded the article before I fixed, in case you had caught your mistake. Also, it was a crappy edit, based on a blogger quoting a blogger quoting someone with many redactions who could be properly quoted. I fixed all that INSTEAD of just deleting your crappy POV pushing edit. I found a real source for your "source". Why didn't you do any of this relatively easy basic work before inserting a crappy quote mine into one of our articles? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. It was the full article from Harper's Magazine. You really don't read sources. I don't know what you mean "blogger quoting a blogger." It was someone writing in Harpers (article posted on web), quoting H.L.M. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense yourself. It was not on, say "". It was on some website, and I read it. And the quote was full of ellipses, always an ugly sign. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It was on the front cover of Harpers hardcopy as the graphic shows, which is where I read it years ago. Tarantallegra (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Animated gif[edit]

That's cute. You should upload it here. tmtoulouse 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What, trent, you too lazy to steal it and upload it yourself? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What page would you want it on? Tarantallegra (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm not current with WikiSynergy (I looked at today for the first time) but, is it just me or does it seem that the only one keeping that site breathing is Purple Scissor?The Goonie 1 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, but almost. Still, it is now associated with SCEPCOP, and if you look here there might be something. Anyway, you guys might have to go to something like WS to keep yourselves busy (if you're willing to do some research). That's becuse WS is into bringing together skeptics and believers, and is a place they should both feel they can trust. The same cannot be said for any other environment, I'd guess. So where else are you going to get a chance to put views up side by side? Argue directly while creating articles? It's a fun concept to promote. See the Why skeptics lose article and the debate on the Actionskeptics blog. They didn't edit WS, but the concept is to engage believers and skeptics directly. And to create real articles while we're at it. See [2], another engagement. They were mad at us on the JREF forum, and refused to edit. But imagine if they had engaged. Tom Butler is head of the AAEVP Tarantallegra (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I, myself, am far from the strongest of the skeptics here, but I still can sniff out BS when I see it. But one of the things I have always enjoyed doing is bringing opposing points of view together to discuss and debate in a civil manner. I'll have to check it out sometime when there is time.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, see you there (; One of the two basic principles is collegiality, the other is letting each point of view fully express itself in its own space. So that ought to nicely with your predilection. Tarantallegra (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, my arguements may, initially, be far from Human grade, but that's what I find fun about debating; it helps one hone their arguements to support their cause. My arguements usually start off totally off-key. But as the debate goes on, my arguements are research get better.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, science and sci thinking is a dialectical process. Takes a lot of time. I wonder if the skeptics from over here would spend the time to do research and really write an article debunking instead of just kind of making fun? Actually I think they did point out some good sources on one issue we had, and Etaroced who is the founder of Rationalwiki just wrote a good article at WS [3], so maybe they would. They were a whole lot better than the skeptics at Wikipedia, who never do a lick of research. Tarantallegra (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"I wonder if the skeptics from over here would spend the time to do research and really write an article debunking instead of just kind of making fun?" You might want to look around a bit more here. Sure, we make our jabs - mostly against painfully obvious woo like EVP - but we also have well-researched intelligent articles. The question is whether they/we would bother to contribute to WS, when we can write here, and quote whatever is appropriate from wherever (WS, sources found via WS, and of course the rest of the universe). ħumanUser talk:Human 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that'd be a case in point, no? You dissed the EVPers ("sample woo"), but you missed their response to your criticism, which we have on WS. So if someone read WS and then came over here they would be wondering whether you have any real answers in serious debate. You think you're good enough to speak for both sides and get it right? You're not. No way to do that. If you want something serious, you have to come and get both sides right there speaking for themselves and responding. Anyway, no one takes snarkyness seriously. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone who hasn't already made up their mind and just wants a good laugh, you have to engage them. RW is great, don't get me wrong. The question is whether you're willing to do something good enough that you could go and ask one of the major skeptics, the scientists, to come and vet it and have them say it's ok. What would you do to a university student who cited an article on RW? You know this stuff here isn't peer review quality. Tarantallegra (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you sort of missed my point there. I used EVP as an example of being little more than snark, since the concept is so silly. And, no, of course, no "student" should cite RW, that would be dumb. I think you might think we put ourselves on a higher pedestal than we really do. That's why we have various "best of" categories - to recognize the really good stuff we do. I'll go check out the responses you mention, the EVP article tab is still live on my browser... thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, no edits to WS:EVP since I fixed an internal link... to what do you refer? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know you don't take yourselves too seriously. Here is the resp [4] I think that's the one I saw. There's nothing more or less silly about EVP than any other psychic stuff I don't think. Anyway, WS is trying to give people the facility to make really reliable articles. If it gets going you know. Tarantallegra (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't a response to us or me, it was there already. The cite in the EVP article here on that topic was to one of the WS:EVP article sources. Anyway, yeah, I hope WS takes off, it's an awesome resource if nothing else for us, and also hopefully a platform where these conflicting perspectives can be presented clearly. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Didn't mean it was a response for you, but it was an explanation of the background noise thing (which you were quoting as woo). And I don't know why it's obvious. It's part and parcel of psychic phenomena. It's not different from mediums, ESP etc. That's what people might think, and to be an effective skeptic you'd have to show it really is just noise. When they have this [5] up, your article just sounds like stupid. Doesn't matter how right you are or how obvious it is, it should be directly engaged with facts. Anyway that's the attempt, we'll see. Tarantallegra (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I find their "responses" to criticisms to be blatantly lame. In note no use of "facts", just dodging and goalpost moving. And finding "meaning" in distorted white noise. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that as soon as anyone uses the word "psychic" in any approving context I begin to laugh immoderately and all further comment is in vain. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 06:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"to be an effective skeptic you'd have to show it really is just noise" so I have to disprove every claim ever made by proving a negative? When the "experimental" setup says "use crappy equipment" and "believe in this to measure it" it's sort of hard to take it seriously. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll take back anything that would mean you have to prove a negative. You can sit here at RW and laugh at them all you want, but all I'm really saying is you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who might be just tempted to believe. If they read what you write, and read Butler's responses, they will believe. That's all I'm saying, nothing more. And yeah, toast, like I said, there's nothing more or less convincing about EVP than other psychic stuff. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You really think Butler's "responses" are even slightly convincing? I find most of them rather embarrassing. Then again, I'm a bit skeptical of EVP... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The counter analogy is, someone who might be just tempted to believe, will more than likely google "EVP" and end up at Wikipedia or at pretty much another other website than WS (including Tom's own website). WS is way down the scale. So if WS wish to displace WP, they (you) need to do some more work at trying to engage those that you wish to edit your articles. Unfortunately you have lost pretty much three Wikipedian editors who came over to see what the noise was. So yes, WS does have a problem. Dismissing those editors that you wish to engage concerns, is not an effective way to engage those editors. If this means that somebody who wishes to believe in EVP lands on WS and decides to believe - well that is their choice - after all, there are plenty of other EVP websites out there. Shot info (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, EVP searches don't even get to RW or WS on page one. But SI, what does "losing three WP editors" have to do with anything? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, maybe the whole - "We need skeptical editors to edit WS" might be a reason why "losing three WP editors" is a bad thing? Shot info (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because it was only three editors, and probably ones 1. inclined to not like WS, and 2. as I have said on WS, WP editors tend to have an attitude they pick up there and carry to other wikis (like the 12,000 rules of WP). ħumanUser talk:Human 07:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL - you are engaging in some circular reasoning here and drifting off the point - probably part of your special "RW treatment" (yawn). Your question was answered and your dismisal of it doesn't help out WS' problem with "We need skeptical editors to edit WS". I note that Tmtoulouse is still editing homeopathy over at WP - maybe he's a special WP editor :-). And as you so gently pointed out in your tirade to me on your homepage - rules is rules (even if you did receive some special RW treatment yourself there...LOL). Shot info (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As usual, Shothead, you are barely making any sense. And drifting into making none. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So by WS' measure, you are now "pseudoskeptics" :-) Shot info (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary Section Break[edit]

Yeah Human, I think you need to make some non-skeptic friends. I'm not talking about what I think here. But yeah, I think that Butler is more convincing certainly than you are in the article here at RW. I think that merely addressing the skeptics directly and sounding convincing is really in his favor. I think that most people already believe in similar stuff, and most people have had experiences they think are psychic. So you've got to be convincing in return, not just think that it doesn't look good to you so they won't believe either. The response here [6] would be really convincing to people, and that's the major objection of skeptics I think (you know, that it's made up by the brain). I think Butler could be more convincing, but compared to the other side he's winning the argument if you get a person with no real idea either way. People will not believe Wikipedia, of course, because if they have had much contact with believers they will have been told about the bias there. So that's not a place a skeptic could be convincing. At WS we should really take that signature thing off and rewrite the skeptical part, the part that is not written by Federline. Tarantallegra (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yer thoughts on WikiSynergy[edit]

I'm curious to know your thoughts on what went down at WikiSynergy, since you are the one who invited me there in the first place.Lord of the Goons (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We're kind of trying to find a way to get a coalition together and make it work so that PS can get out of the business without completely ruining the vision. Don't know if that will work. There's someone else who wants to maybe copy stuff over to anothe wiki. Tarantallegra 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)