User talk:Rectified

Hmmm, what did you do to fix it? I have found another page that loads weirdly. Old Caliber

Everything above the the Classical versus quantum mechanics topic loaded fine, which was the clue. The two calls right under it are for the drop down menu boxes on the right. When I cut them out the page loaded ok. Then I tried removing one of them at a time to narrow it down. It was the {.{Quantum mechanics |background}.} call that was pulling everything over to the right side with it, entangling it, not a bad feature but still. Now the dots in between the double braces leaves the Quantum Mechanics box in a state of superposition. No way to tell if the code inside is alive or dead without looking.Rectified (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2016 (CEST)

Yeah, the Quantum Mechanics template did not exist. I added it from Wikipedia, and that might be enough to fix it. We can experiment tomorrow. It takes a day as far as I can see for these changes to propogate. Old Caliber

Is this brute-force approach necessary?Rectified (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2016 (CEST)

Depends on what you mean by brute-force. We could wait for 'others' to do another scan and pull in lots of missing pages, but I have learned a lot from doing these things. For example, some of the pages cause errors that seem to be related to the pages using LUA functions that are not in the version of MediaWiki we started with, it seems and we will need to do some experimenting with the Mediawiki code to get the <math> tags working, which I will try to get in hand in the next two weeks after I have installed a Wiki setup to experiment with. Old Caliber

Interesting, thanks. I don't quite know what I mean, but did have in mind waiting for another scan or new whatever some fine day. I've also learned a bit by doing.

Yes have also noticed it takes a day to see the effect of the template load. Rectified (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2016 (CEST)

I would like to turn the Tips-n-tricks page into a tutorial on creating pages so we can get more people adding pages.

I would also like to get something more substantial in the Phantom Time Hypothesis page, and I have an email address for Hans-E Korth that might get me some more info. Old Caliber

I disabled the double brace {.{ type calls (by sticking the dot in between the braces) one by one until the page loaded ok. That was probably a couple technologies ago anyways, seems things are being done differently now. Notice the CS1 story. I reverted that particular disable on the Mechanics page a few days ago, figuring it wasn't helping anything. I did the same type of disable on a few other pages too, will eventually find and revert. Rectified (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2016 (CEST)

This problem has been fixed. Please send email to crew@infogalactic.com. Also, see Infogalactic:Bug list for editors.

The problem was that the php-tidy module had not been installed. Figured it out this weekend.

(Crew (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2016 (CEST))

Good show. https://phase2.infogalactic.com/info/Theodore_Roosevelt had a similar problem, now fixed. Rectified (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2016 (CEST)

Probably not a sandbox

You probably don't want to treat your page as a sandbox, and use it for stuff about you. However, you can construct sub pages off of your User:Rectified page, either by using a link like User:Rectified/page_about_something or by changing the URL string in the browser to append "/page_about_something" to the end of the URL and then hitting enter.

-- Crew (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please improve the article on SJWs always lie

There are a number of empty sections that should either be given content, or removed. I don't see a list of chapters, for example. -- Crew (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd thought about listing the chapters, not sure that's a good idea. Most book pages don't do that. And I'm no good at book reviews and summaries.

Couple ideas. Put a section (in any book) for "Reader Comments/Reviews". Put a link to the Amazon page for the book. Examples for this page-

Review Excerpts

This book might just be the most dangerous book in America. It begins with a primer on the forces of intolerance and thought control that are currently active in today's society, and provides a revealing look at the hearts and minds of those at the forefront of shutting down open and honest debate. It uses the on-going saga of GamerGate to provide an in-depth analysis of one front in the culture war, and to illustrate the standard playbook of those who prosecute the modern day Salem Witch Trials. The book then segues into effective counter-strategies that can be used against them. -Reviewer A.

The chapters alternate between disturbing demonstrations of SJW methods and tactics used against people who should have been fairly indestructible (thus bringing the reader close to despair) and showing proven, reliable ways that could be used to actually defeat such attacks (giving the reader hope and the reason to read on). -Reviewer B.

Rectified (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User Page

Hi Rectified. You posted this on my user page (not my discussion page):

Check out the Roadmap and particularly the Seven Canons, linked from the main page. Legend has it Infogalactic was instigated by a Vox Day back in 2016. I must warn you: rumor has it he might still be around these parts but I won't confirm. The motives include eclipsing Wikipedia in the not distant future (as you can imply from the Roadmap), a crusade to save Western Civilization, conquering the galaxy, etc. Try an edit on a 9/11 page. Rectified (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• The roadmap led no where.
• The Seven Canons aren't really much different than Wikipedia's terms & conditions. In my opinion, WP's are clearer, though I despise their fringe and political censorship, not to mention their inflexibility to expand to include fancruft, synthesis, etc. Regardless, being civil should go without saying. I read the cannons when I signed up. I'm don't recall the roadmap and may or may not have read it then too.
• Vox Day as the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil doesn't assure me of anything. I'm not superstitious or religious but some evil is more than a joke. I was known as "Wicked Sunshine" at Burning Man, a place of fun and satire. On the other hand regardless whether you believe the PizzaGate stuff, real evil lives in Washington D.C. the center of psychopaths, including people like war-monger neo-con Richard Perle who adopted the nickname Prince of Darkness.
• Whether InfoGalactic (silly name) really has any chance of eclipsing Wikipedia is anyone's guess.
• I WILL get to the 9/11 stuff eventually. I burnt myself out last year.
• On WP, only the user could edit his/her own user page. User Talk/Discussion pages were open to be added to. Initially I felt confused and even violated to see my IG user page edited by someone other than myself. Then I realized maybe because it's a different site and perhaps culture the rules were different. In this regard I can't express enough that a user should have some things like User page and User Drafts be "privately" edited without interruption, even if publicly read, (naturally with exceptions for violations, such as slander, doxxing, etc).
• I'm glad that IG exists as a freer alternative and glad I can participate.
• Does "ping" work on IG's talk pages?

All help and constructive criticism very welcome, but on my user discussion page. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unicorn

Hi, please don't add sillyness to articles like you did Unicorn. This is a serious encyclopedia project, not Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, RationalWiki, etc. Thanks.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, IG is not a website for 'promotion' of 'conspiracy theories' or 'fringe science' either; factual information regarding "non-mainstream ideas or theories" is fine (e.x. sourcing factual information about various scientific cosmological models), but if you are here simply to soapbox your own ideas about "media conspiracies to cover up the existence of unicorns" or "the Big Bang being a religion", "Richard Pearle being a neocon warmonger", etc - then you will likely be in a conflict of interest with our mission statement.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

1. If this sort of thing doesn't belong on the Unicorn page, then it also doesn't belong on the Stephen Hawking page. 2. Variations of "the Big bang is a religion" at User:Rectified/Objections to the big bang come from numerous sources, both proponents and critics. I am citing some of them. 3. The Dark Prince, "Richard Pearle being a neocon warmonger" (not my project), could also be cited from a thousand sources, so I don't get your point. Rectified (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add the statement in question the Hawking page, I just moved it to another section. As far as sources go, they have to be factual and have some meaningful definition of "religion" as opposed to just being pure opinion or "weasel words". If one for example, could provide factual sources stating a bias toward the Big Bang theory over other cosmological theories, that's fine, but a statement like "the Big Bang is a religion" is just empty rhetoric.

Since you're just arguing instead of listening, then I have a feeling you're mainly here to crusade ideologically which could present a problem.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Seven Cannons - Canon Four - No griefing.

All griefers, which is to say trolls, vandals, rules lawyers, and ideological crusaders of every kind, will be aggressively anticipated, trapped, and removed. Don't bother playing word games or trying to hide behind pedantic interpretations of the rules. Infogalactic's Starlords are under direct orders to freeze any account that appears to belong to a griefer and to permanently ban those confirmed as such. Don't try to be sneaky. You're not going to fool anyone.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. For example, it is fine to add 'sourced' information to the 'snopes.com' article based on news articles or the recently released info in the divorce proceedings of the Mikklesons, but it is not fine to claim that they are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Similarly, humorous comments, while appreciated by some, don't have a place except in articles about humor itself and there only as examples of humor.

Temporary time out

Hi sorry, but I'm going to have to give you a temporary time out and consult with the other admins about reviewing your edits, due to some troll edits such as this edit on the Unicorn article, along with some edits in which you are promoting a "Miles Mathis" blogger of questionable relevance. I'd recommending taking a short break from editing so that we can review what you've been up to.

For the record, we have a zero tolerance policy for trolling or 'ideological crusading', so any more edits like the one you made to the unicorn article could result in a ban.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi, if you decide to come back and edit, I'd like to have a talk with you and some of the other administrators just to make sure we're on the same page, I see you've written some in-depth content, but some of your edits such as the 'unicorn' edit seemed odd so I think we need to get this issue resolved.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The concerns of Mr. Ovid have been noted. Rectified (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi, do you have any information on the metrics by which Wikipedia peaked in 2007/2008? You mentioned this on the Talk page about the Roadmap and I am curious. --Howe Anonymous (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It peaked in both the total number of editors and the number of admins. There might be links to graphs and data in the early Vox Popoli https://voxday.blogspot.com/ OPs or comments about starting a new Wikipedia, late 2015 to early 2016. Admins went from several thousands (10,000?) in 2008 down to several hundred (550, say) by 2016. Page views may have peaked back then as well, not sure about that. Rectified (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)