User talk:Lumenos/Archive 001

link to category page
Dear Lumenos, Did you know you can put a link to a category page -- for example, Category:Guidelines -- anywhere in an article? I am sorry the syntax is so counter-intuitive. --DavidCary 08:53, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
 * No, Sir. I hadn't seen an example of it until now. I will delete that "hack" I use. Lumenos 09:01, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

IRC
Can we take the 3-odd discussions we are holding right now to IRC? If you're using Firefox, install ChatZilla and click on the #wikiindex link on the left; otherwise google for a client for your OS, install one, then at the IRC command line type "/server irc.freenode.net", then "/join #wikiindex". Phantom Hoover 15:23, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I didn't get this message until a few hours ago. I may be up for it at some point but I have got so much to do now. Lumenos 01:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
 * For future reference I put together a list of ways to contact me either "privately" or in real-time on my Lumeniki user profile. Lumenos 01:56, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
 * If anything really important happens at IRC you might ask the participants there if they would mind if you copy the transcript and email it to me. If you email me through Wikipedia or my wikis email this email is shttp, if "privacy" is a concern. I should be checking this address lately, because someone is interested in the solar steam electricity generation system, for which I have done a review/interview. Lumenos 23:46, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm...
You aren't CUR, are you? Phantom Hoover 15:35, 5 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Am I supposed to know what that means? Lumenos 15:38, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, you would if you were CUR. Or maybe you're just CUR pretending to be someone else. Phantom Hoover 15:42, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Am I being investigated for some reason? Lumenos 15:48, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * No... Arthur. Phantom Hoover 15:59, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Shouldn't you be polishing your daggers? Lumenos 16:05, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Shouldn't you be stroking your rusty-spotted cat? Phantom Hoover 16:12, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * The very first google hit for "Phantom Hoover" is Liberapedia  hmmmmmmmm   Does somebody wanna go back on the naughty chair? :-) Lumenos 16:59, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I have no idea why. You can always find out who CUR is with RWW and the Google cache. Phantom Hoover 17:07, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * But if I am they then I don't want to be stiffed out, but you are mad cause I called you a goblin and told everyone about Pi? Lumenos 17:10, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * ??? Phantom Hoover 17:13, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Why Hoovie?!?!? Why! Because I made a little joke? Lumenos 17:06, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * ??? Phantom Hoover 17:07, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Let's be friends again.  Lumenos 17:11, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Ugh. Phantom Hoover 17:13, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 *  Lumenos 17:14, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

I need to go offline now. Bye for now my love. Lumenos 17:17, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * * stabs Lumenos in the eye with a fountain pen for being weird, not using standard action asterisks and getting my name wrong* Phantom Hoover 17:18, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I have HAD IT! I'm taking all your daggers and putting them in this drawer and locking it and keeping the key safely in my pocket. And they will remain in this location until my eyeball is returned. Lumenos 04:02, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't really administer RationalWiki
Gosh the things you can learn on talk pages. I hope people know enough to look at talk pages where the real information on the wikis may be. Lumenos 09:04, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * "RationalWiki has about 3,197 registered users, of which 359 (or 11.23%) have Sysops rights, which are awarded very liberally by the bureaucrats." from RationalWiki Nx 09:07, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

"Administering" RationalWiki
It should be noted that virtually every editor on RW is an "admin", or sysop. Being an admin there is no special thing. That is all. Huw Powell 02:26, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I ran that title through a spell check, for ya. Gosh I wish I could move your comment over to my user page, but you know, I don't want to offend anybody. :-) (You can edit it... and I'm not going to see that as an invitation to edit yours... necessarily.) Lumenos 04:12, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I corrected the title further. Thank you for adding the disclaimer and rewording your statement.  Copying from one place on a wiki to another, especially when you are copying good writing and are yourself not such a clear writer, is a good thing. Huw Powell 23:34, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * You understand that I may switch from Yoda to Lumenati, mid sentence? I'm practically a Mercan, in fact. You must make sure you aren't going too fast or you could miss a word that makes the sentence sound more like something you're accustomed to. It is one of many cloaking devices employed as maturity tests, to prevent immature readers from learning anything too dangerous. None the less I've updated Lumeniki with the following sentence: Expert grandmatician Huw Powel has enunciated with no uncertain terms, that a Mercan has a sort of communication style that induces a "stream of consciousness" (sic) :-) If you have an example sentence, I may provide some example sentences, proving that it indeed conforms to grandmatics. Lumenos 08:16, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

You administer RationalWiki?
I wasn't aware of that. I must've missed a staff meeting. Nx 08:32, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * (Nx is a bureaucrat at RationalWiki.) Hum maybe I'm not using the conventional definition of an admin, but I changed it. Are my sysop privileges awaiting me if the site ever comes back online? Lumenos 08:41, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * If not, is there anything you can say to all the other sysops who may be wondering what I did wrong? Lumenos
 * Practically everyone's a sysop at RationalWiki. I'm not going to desysop you. Nx 08:56, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Do you think that I should loose my sysopness? Lumenos 09:00, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 * No. Nx 09:01, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Copyrights
Copyrights says, "Most content on this wiki is under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/." Does that statement apply to talk pages? Lumenos 08:12, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes. Also why are you asking this on your talk page? Nx 08:15, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't see a need to bug Dad or sysops, if we can get something done ourselves. Lumenos 08:18, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * But I'm asking you because you just told me about something else I was apparently doing wrong. And so I'd like some feedback on some other issues as well. Mostly the policy stuff though. I would think that would be of greater concern than a talk page, but that's just me. Lumenos 08:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Your talk page is usually for other people to ask questions of you. If you ask questions here, they might not get noticed. Nx 08:24, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh okay. I tend to be more passive I guess. I figured since you were here giving me advice already. I don't know that anyone else would care to be bothered. Do you think the average editor would harbor grievances such as that, without telling me, until after I go to a great deal of work? Lumenos 08:32, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * For example the copyright page here is OpenEdit I assume that is not an invitation to alter it, in that case, everything else seems to be a bit gray. I was kinda surprised that you were able to get unblocked so quick after (or because of) blanking someone's user page or whatever it was. Clearly wandalous (meaning easy to fix) but I don't know what we are gonna do with policy pages all intermingled with people's copyrighted work, if someone decides we should all retain our copyrights. Lumenos 08:26, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Any text you add here is released under CC-by-sa-3.0, it says so under the edit box (I updated the copyright page because clearly someone who has access to the server files updated the global license setting to cc-by-sa-3.0, but forgot to update that page). You cannot suddenly decide to revoke this license and ask all your contributions to be removed. Nx 08:31, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh okay, so it is impolite in your "culture". Perhaps if we get more agreement on this we should edit Editing etiquette, to reflect these conventions. Lumenos 08:34, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
 * No. I believe it is illegal. Phantom Hoover 10:41, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Which law? Or what reason? Lumenos 11:03, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I think that you cannot change the copyright if it is against the terms of the license; I remember that there was a discussion on RW over whether or not we could change the license without getting sued. Phantom Hoover 11:24, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh I understand that. That is what ShareAlike means. I apologize for my ambiguous pronoun. I was referring to copying from talk pages, while retaining the original license. I wasn't really sure if the (ShareAlike) copyright notice applied to talk pages or only the articles. Lumenos 11:29, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't want to bug anyone but if a sysop is reads this, I suggest you protect the copyright page. If someone changes it to say we all retain copyright to our own work, it may not be noticed for a while. Lumenos 11:37, 2 September 2009 (EDT)


 * I am confused. We are using the CC-by-SA license, right? When I release work under that license, I retain copyright to my own work, right? Yes, someone might point out that true fact on a the copyright page. Is "someone pointing out true facts" something I need to protect against? --DavidCary 14:08, 4 September 2009 (EDT)


 * I said that wrong. What I meant was if someone altered it to say that no one is free to copy anyone's work. Like maybe if they just deleted the Share Alike license? I don't know what that would mean in articles, where the work of many people may be mingled together, but on talk pages it would seem to imply that we would be forbidden from copying large chunks of dialog (beyond what would constitute "fair use") to another location. For example, I might want to copy a large portion of a talk page to Lumeniki and alter it according to my perception of what it would seem to mean :-), (it would keep the Share Alike license). I already have been copying or moving chunks around, which was what prompted me to ask this question. It seems that it would be "legal" now, so long as I retain the license. Lumenos 11:20, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * (I should probably say that this is not to say that I should, given possibilities, such as that "hackers" may have more control of "my" wiki than anyone else.) Lumenos 11:20, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Another possibility is that they change it to forbid derivative works. Lumenos 11:20, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I post this here because maybe you have some way of being alerted when these seemingly very important pages, are edited? Lumenos 11:20, 5 September 2009 (EDT)