User talk:AD

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)

Hi!

We just dropped below 1,300 for the Dead Link Project. Thank you for your hard work! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I only have done a few dozen - nothing compared to your own efforts. Thank you for your dedication.--^talk 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. Let's keep it up. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply from Markman

First of you might ask why I'm editing from a proxy IP rather than my own account. This is because Hippocrite reverted the block he gave me, but he forgot to unblock my IP. Please unblock it (I can reset it myself but I don't want to interrupt the internet activities of my roommates) and than I'll reply to you from my own account. I can reply to you right now from this IP, but I want no ambiguity as to the fact that the words I'm about to write are indeed mine. I will tell you though that I'm more or less thinking of accepting your offer. - 66.90.101.217 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you should be unblocked now. Sorry for that inconvenience.--^talk 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's better. What I'm about to write to you right now will probably be the only public input from me in the whole "permaban Markman" discussion. While I enjoyed editing RW so far, I'm not as invested in this wiki as I am in other wikis I edit (such as CP and sonichu.com) so I won't be distressed should Hippocrite and Nutty have their way. I'm not going to defend my conduct on CP; if the majority of editors here want to ban me than I won't fight to deny them their wish. I'll just say that I find it absurd that people are actually upset about the occurrences at what they consider to basically be a joke website.

I don't want to cause too much drama here so I've decided to accept your offer and go away for a while. For the time being I won't make any edits here. At least not under this account. I don't think anyone will find edits from IPs not directly traceable to me as objectionable, and it's not like they'll be able to know either way. I'd like to thank you for being reasonable and generally basing your interactions with me on my conduct on RW rather than my conduct on CP. I think you're one of the worthier mods here.

There's actually much more I want to say to you in regards to some of the issues you've raised on my talk page, but I don't want to discuss it here. I'm afraid it'll just raise shit up in a way the users of this site do not see as productive. Is there a chance you'll be willing to talk to me in private? If not than I'll understand, I opened another email account for CP and RW correspondence and I'm still reluctant to openly reveal it.

Goodbye RW, I'm going to stay here a day or two perhaps in order to wrap things up with AD and make a couple of few minor edits regarding my departure. Other than that I'm not going to make edits to either mainspace or CP space, or to any other pages other than a talk page or two and my own user page.

EDIT: I will however return under my own persona to revert any vandalism to my user page. Other than that you won't see me until the point when my full return is appropriate. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I am open to being contacted by email, if you'd like. You can use the "email this user" option and I would be happy to respond to any further issues you may have.

Thank you also for being reasonable in this matter. I appreciate that and your willingness to discuss this, it is very admirable.--^talk 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, it's really important to me. Now, in regards to the email thing... I've heard of the feature you talked about but can't seem to actually find it. This is kind of embarrassing, but can you help me locate it? - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the left side of your page under the "toolbox" heading, you should see this option available to you. There is also a link from my userpage.--^talk 19:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure, if I send you a message can I know that whatever I'm writing stays between you and me? Just in case you're worried I'm not going to talk about any plans to harm RW or any person. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course. All correspondence is private.--^talk 19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry.

How individuals respond to editors leaving is not site policy, and therefore none of my concern. I am removing myself from the conversation in the Saloon Bar. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Of meat and protein sources

First, I despise your vegetarian crusade (barbecue forever!!!!). However, if you are to be fighting "meat as a source of protein" argument, you might like some help. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the backstory here is that the USDA was exploring replacing high meat content on school lunch menus with Greek-style yogurt because of the fact that the yogurt has a similar protein content, but is typically either low-fat or, in the case of the Chobani brand, actually fat free. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! And of course I understand your position: barbecue is delicious, and a lot of people think it's worthwhile to torture and kill animals in order to eat it. Everyone should make their own ethical judgments about this sort of thing.--^talk 12:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

new section

Hi, Can you please help me, I have had my contributions vandalized by an authoritarian admin on here called "Sprocket J Cogswell". He has falsely accused me of reverting to boring versions, which is not the real reason for the ban. Ironically, after vandalizing my contributions, he put me in the vandal bin. A few days ago I did revert an article because my contribution had been vandalized. I have not reverted any articles since, what I did was correct a couple of articles so that they are more rational. The real reason I am being banned is to censor me and prevent me from opening up the discussion on left-wing "liberal" authoritarianism, which is a highly censored forbidden topic on this site. How can you claim to be about rationally exploring ideas of authoritarianism, when if left wing liberal authoritarianism is even mentioned, the information is immediately pounced on and censored? You claim to be a site devoted to rationality, yet one can be censored without any rational rebuttal of the censored information? Information is censored because it does not fit someone's authoritarian agenda. Please unban me, and if you have no logical rebuttal to my contribution, then please do not arbitrarily censor it. ‎^{— Unsigned, by: ‎StopTheViolence / talk / contribs}

I will take a look.--^talk 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Beating libertarians at their own game (Or, taking the NAP seriously)

The easiest way to cut to the heart of the matter is to demonstrate the incompatibility of the libertarian's two favorite things: Property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Libertarians usually take property rights for granted, part of a host natural rights (a la Rothbard). The only attempt I've seen at a deeper justification of property rights is something like what appears in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which is really just a modification of Locke's "labor mixing" argument. The problem here, of course, is that it is totally ahistorical and ignores how much property (esp. land) was initially acquired or privatized. Without a rational justification for property, we're left with two options, then. In a society under the governance of a state, the only justification for property is because the state sanctions it. In a stateless society, property can only be held by force. So property can only exist by means of the initiation of force, either by the state or by individuals with the ability to defend said property. Property itself, then, is the initiation of force. (Ironically, this is also an anarchist argument.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I dealt with the issue like you suggested. I also noticed that we have the same name! Not telling if mine ends with an A or not, but it's the same spelling. It's the Western spelling. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Book reviews

I took a quick poke through your book reviews. I particularly enjoyed your reviews of Around the World in Eighty Days (I've always loved Jules Verne) and Life & Times of Michael K. I read the latter during my last year of high school, and I found it an amazing read. I think this weekend I may take a closer look at your reviews and assemble a reading list for myself. It's been far too long since I've picked up a good book. - GrantC (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you like them. I'm about two-dozen books overdue for some more - I read faster than I write!--^talk 03:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the reading to be the easy part. To me, there's nothing quite like reading and digesting a good book, and so far no other method of story-telling has managed to impact me quite so much. I can't write reviews worth my life, however. I found myself nodding along to your points as I went along, but had you asked me my thoughts beforehand, I would have been hard-pressed to put them to words. - GrantC (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's gratifying to hear! I acquired the habit of analytic reading some time ago, and now it's stuck, alas.--^talk 03:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but when it comes to reading (and the accompanying analysis), I far prefer verbal discussion to anything written. I suppose I find that the flow of active conversation helps me organize and catalogue my thoughts. In contrast, when I try to put those ideas into words on my own, I find myself unable to do so. I suppose I'm simply not meant to study literature! - GrantC (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with preferring to discourse rather than write - although I will also say that there literary critics are made, not born.--^talk 04:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That is very true. I do occasionally play the role of an armchair literary critic with my friends, though it has been quite some time since I have read a book far enough outside of my comfort zone to be able to make any meaningful analysis. - GrantC (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"I didn't want to custom-tailor the essay, I wanted adjustable garb that anyone could try on"

You're argument is an ill-fitted Walmart shirt and its socks are poorly darned. --MC

Your* But yeah, sick burn, I guess?--14:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at this

[1] I'm going to put back the sysop right. I would also prefer it if you say something to him about it instead of taking him to the coop. Or you could take him there if you want, but I don't want it to look like I'm mindlessly complaining. It was uncalled for when Hamilton did it, and it's certainly not called for now. It's also against wiki convention to do something because something might happen. If that's a justification, then one might as well protect all wiki pages and have a Citizendium like set up. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 01:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, this isn't something I care about. I'm not worried that Stabby, who I trust, is going to start some grudge or campaign that is going to disrupt things, and you were able to give yourself back the rights, so there was no harm done. Plus, I don't wholly disagree with him. It's a tough call to say which is better for RW: you with rights and the resulting issues of your exercising them and people yanking them because of your attitude, or you without rights and the resulting necessity to keep unblocking you.

Nor am I worried about this creating a precedent. We have a fairly strong ideology in place, where wiki-hazing is the norm for people who are unpleasant or disruptive, but also where everyone is allowed to speak their piece. It works pretty well, and encourages people to learn not to behave like social goons, while also protecting the dissident opinions that are vital for informed inquiry.--^talk 23:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

An idea for a gadget

I had an idea to make a window that pops up on the main screen (still in the same window) when the user clicks a "my documents" link in the user bar at the top of the page. The window would have a series of links to user space pages and prefix index pages for that user's user space. It would have links for thinks like article drafts, scripts, sandboxes, user templates, or anything else that would be useful. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 01:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess if you want to do that, you can. I should mention that I am not very techie, so you should probably check with an established user who is (Blue, Hamilton, etc.) before mucking around with anything that could disrupt the wiki, in case they have any tips. Thank you.--^talk 23:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to enter any code into the general JavaScript or CSS pages without testing it first in my own userspace. Even then, I'm going to ask people what they think before making the change across the entire site. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent plan.--^talk 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Developing extensions for Rational Wiki

Do you have any familiarity with PHP and are you on GitHub? –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 01:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No and no.--^talk 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision delete

Could you please look here and see if this revision warranted deletion? For some reason, despite being a sysop, I can't see it, and I can't see it on the deletion log either. Also make sure it isn't an abuse of tech powers... Thanks--"Shut up, Brx." 14:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

He's apparently using his tech powers to delete revisions [2] --"Shut up, Brx." 16:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I was removing personal information. Should I have kept that public? You're acting like a tattle tell going to like 30 mods and techs on this, all for removing personal information. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're full of shit. I suggested to AD that he look into it, that's all. And pray tell, what personal information is here?--"Shut up, Brx." 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And why do you think that? You're acting like a tattle tell right now who just wants an oppertunity to get someone in trouble. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 16:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, AD. Whenever you get back from teaching schoolchildren/critiquing Stephanie Meyer on your blog, it may be a good idea for you (as a moderator) to see if that revision needed to be suppressed. I would handle this myself, but I don't have the user rights.

In the interest of keeping you from chiding me, I brought this to your attention because I don't think IE should be either a sysop or a tech. Because he's a troll. Sorry for drawing activity to your talk page/taking time out of your day/whatever else I've done to you by posting here. Usually I try staying out of the IE drama, but for some reason today I seem to have dived in.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not irritated, given all the hullaballoo with Ehrenstein recently, it makes sense that you'd want to double-check this, and you can't. Perfectly reasonable to bring it up.

It looks like a reasonable suppression. No worries with it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. You're the man.--^talk 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a fairly common first name of a user that was found publicly on his blog, but I felt it was still not proper to use it, seeing as his name isn't found on his user page here. There's no reason for a fuss over suppressing a single revision; you are being a troll and a tattle tell. It's quite obvious that you're going "Oh look! An opportunity to revoke rights from Inquisitor Ehrenstein!" –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's more like "Not sure we can trust him so someone needs to check this." Fairly reasonable, given past history. But you're cool on this one as far as I'm concerned, so no worries. Keep on keepin' on.--^talk 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I demoted Arcane

He seems to have a history of contributions here and I sent him links to deleted pages on other websites assuming he was a sysop. I wanted to let you know. If you think he's not ready or something I can remove the sysop rights. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 14:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh... ok. You know I'm not in charge here, right?--^talk 14:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but you have more experience than I do. :) –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 14:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Okeydokey.--^talk 15:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguing with oddballs

You do realize you're currently arguing with the same guy who also thinks the metric system is "the epitome of hubristic, top-down planning"? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be interesting to have a big discussion about an ideological topic, for my own benefit as much as his. I am trying to get more in the habit of asking myself: what do I think I know, and how do I think I know it? Smerdis is an intelligent discussor but squishy on such things, as I saw in the vegetarianism discussion with him (where his position was an unrigorous mix of "it's okay to eat meat because other people do it" and "it's okay because PETA is evil"). It was an interesting discussion, as far as it went, and I am really interested in honing my skills at finding the truth in this sort of thing.--^talk 19:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In a way, it could backfire. Arguing against weak counter-arguments is not really conducive to re-evaluating your own stance. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - if the issue was important. I don't think it is, because I thought his case was incredibly weak and the odds that he was right were incredibly low. I still think that. But it was a good opportunity to discuss a nebulous and big set of ideas, and try to extract some rigorous and testable principles out of it - or decide that the proposition was incapable of producing such principles. Your warning is well-taken, though: sloppy thinking put forward by the persuasive can be a very dangerous thing.--^talk 21:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but I was thinking of something more along the lines of the Thunderf00t debacle. Spending all your time arguing with creationists eventually corrodes your own reasoning process. In other words, it all goes back to Nietzsche's dictum, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I think it's probably true that if you spend all your time doing that, you'll be in trouble. A life of crazy starts to seep in at the seams. Sage words, Nebs.--^talk 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just in case you need more information for assessing whether to engage further with a certain user, I suggest looking at the quality of the reasoning presented on Talk:Metric system.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Smerdis is so bad we had to link that page twice! :-D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In my defence, I had left the page for editing opened in a tab and left the comment for a bit to "mature". :)--ZooGuard (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I knew him and his methods going into it; it was worthwhile and productive.--^talk 19:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty good discussion, at least from your side, a methodical engagement of the material in the essay. I was definitely glad that it happened and I got to see it. Nullahnung (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Democratically elected.

You have been "democratically elected" to get rid of all the red links you made by deleting that articlePowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I want ahead and removed the ones I could. What's left in that list are due to "democratically elected" being randomly included in {{languagenav}} (when navigation templates randomly display articles based on their inclusion in a category, and an article in said category is deleted, it can take a while for MediaWiki to register its nonexistence). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think between the two of us we got all of them.--^talk 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The five

The discussion on the Five is still going on if you want to say something on the talk page. ClothCoat (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I edited the page on the five so I hope it's better now.ClothCoat (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look :) --^talk 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better, but I am still not sure that it needs its own page.--^talk 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I challenge you to a debate

The topic; This house believes that liberty is preferable to tyranny.

You will be arguing on behalf of tyranny, I on behalf of liberty. You have 24 hours to respond. Marcus Cicero SPQR 21:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Boring.--^talk 23:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Marcus. Nice to see you. 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

AD, I am an elected member of the moderati, I lead the reform faction, and you will treat me with respect. If you're too cowardly to debate me, please say so. Don't hide behind this pompous pretence. Marcus Cicero SPQR 11:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Such a romanophile as you should take the time to actually learn Latin, it'd be less embarrassing.

Anyway, as I have told told you, you're boring now. This whole "I'm so goofy yet subversive" nonsense is tedious, and you yourself are kind of... well, you're kind of a nothing. You have moved from mildly irritating to annoying to laughingstock to... nothing.

Go join flagpole-sitting in the Closet of Irrelevancies and pester me no more, babbit.--^talk 23:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fear and Loathing in the Passive Voice

My apologies if you already keep up with the Language Log blog, but they have a new article up about mislabeled examples of the passive voice in English. I thought you'd like it. I certainly did — I learned a lot! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I do read that blog, it's one of my favorites! Thanks for the tip, though!--^talk 15:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Hi AD, I have nominated you for a position on the board. I've done this because I think you were a particularly effective moderator, you have a keen intellect and you have a proven track record of supporting the project. You know where to go to accept or refuse the nomination but can I impress on you that, with respect to the health of the foundation, I think it would be a valuable use of your time to take on the role. Tielec01 (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and I appreciate your confidence.--^talk 19:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, VenomFangX had lots of content last time.

Hi, Um i looked through the fossil record,and found that VenomFangX page had lots and lots of stuff, and then gone before you protected it. What happened? http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=VenomFangX&diff=1236906&oldid=1233527 ^{— Unsigned, by: The6thMessenger / talk / contribs} PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, that's probably because poorly-written blow-by-blow accounts of the doings of completely irrelevant people on YouTube aren't why we run this website. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The tedious churnings of every bit of minutiae on a relatively trivial liar's YouTube channel are neither useful nor edifying.--^talk 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

English teacherer, I rekwire to lern the English speek, please

Before I begin begging for help, let me say that I respect the fact that you are a professional language teacher with your own life and your own priorities, and that I do not believe I am owed your assistance in this matter, especially since you would essentially be doing your job for free. Still, I beseech you for assistance because you are the only person I know for certain to be qualified to assist me with this, my family consisting mostly of engineers and French language teachers, and my very few friends (actually, I think I'll start saying my select friends, because it sounds more classy than lonely) being either high school dropouts such as myself, or not experts in the relevant field. I would attempt to divine the answers to my questions myself, perhaps through Google and Wikipedia, without burdening another (and indeed I have often procured my own answers in this fashion), but this seems like the sort of knowledge best found not sifted through the infinite sands of knowledge, but rather directly acquired from a sage grammatician. If you don't have the time or the patience to help me, I understand. If you dislike me too much to help me, I understand even better. Hopefully, my seeking your wise counsel, be it granted or not, will not distract you from contributing to society or simply enjoying your life. I understand that you are not a slave to my curiosity. I know your life would quickly become unpleasant if everybody on the internet started coming to you for assistance with the minutia of the English tongue. So if you deny me, I will not fault you. Granted, I will be sad. Curiosity is like an itching fire within my skull, and only knowledge quenches it. But I know that I do not outweigh you. And honestly, when weighed against constant harassment by would-be English students you don't get paid to teach, my not knowing a bit of linguistic trivia seems fairly insignificant. Thus I throw myself at your whim, AD. Will you help me? Will you spurn me? Will my excessively verbose prelude cause you to roll your eyes and quit reading only a few sentences in? I like reading the things I write. But I'd hardly be shocked if I were the only one. So behold, the question for AD, Lord of Language, Esquire of English, Prince of Parlance: When do I use dashes between words? Like, with one-year-old. Do I put a dash between each word? What about for a term, like one-shot? Does half-decent need a dash, or am I sticking it in there for no good reason? And for "English-speaking:"^{also, should I put the colon before the quotation mark or after?} do all nouns, when followed by a present participle, require a dash first? Dashes are confusing me. It seems like every time I write something I feel like I should be sticking a dash somewhere. But I don't where, or if it's even correct. Also, when do I use dashes in a sentence, as opposed to parentheses, colons, commas, and semi-colons? When do I use dashes?

Hey, here's a tangent (sorry if this is running long, I'm hopped up on my ADHD medication, and let me tell you: it's great for working, but not so great for leisure. I've been typing up a storm all over the internet, RationalWiki included. Hopefully it's not all gibberish. Is this gibberish? Can you understand what I'm typing right now or should I speak to my doctor about switching meds, because this one is making me type gibberish without realizing it? I don't think that's a side effect. Side-effect? See, I gotta know about these dashes). The other day my father was here and I was asking him a very similar question about dashes in French (called tiret). From what I remember, the usage of dashes in the French language is more often than not arbitrary. So there are no rules to rely on so you know when to use them. They're either there or they're not. It's a matter of memory. The same thing is true for the circumflex. There are no rules for its placement. My father said it's a carryover from some older version of the French language. Yay for rich linguistic heritage! Just kidding. Boo. Boo for making things so complicated. Oh well, that's life. At least Spanish is easier. In Spanish, the diacritics and graphemes (no, I'm not actually familiar with those terms, I picked them up second before typing this to better communicate my point- frankly, I'm not even sure what the difference between the two is. So just in case I seem smarter than I actually am, I'm not. With brxbrx, always err on the side of stupidity. Say, did I use the dash correctly in this parenthetical?) are used with logical consistence. Oh, you still have those accursed irregular verbs, but as a native speaker of French, I really think Spanish is the easier language.

Well, hopefully you'll be able to sort through this word salad of mine (and no trolls will stop by to insult me and derail any potential discussion), and maybe you'll deign answer my questions. I would really appreciate that. thanks, --"Shut up, Brx." 21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesus christ almighty.

You're talking about two different things: dashes and hyphens.

A dash is a punctuation mark used to join together two thoughts, most often by appending one thought onto another. This is typically used to express surprise, alarm, or an afterthought. There are two types of dashes, en-dashes and em-dashes. The en-dash is the width of the letter "n," and the em-dash is the width of the letter "m." They can be used interchangeably for the most part, but generally outside of professional typesetting you will employ the en-dash (–). This sentence is an example of how the en-dash is used – and it's fun!

The hyphen is a different type of punctuation mark. It is shorter, and looks like this: -. Swan's English Grammar advises us that the hyphen is used to join together two words, either in the case of a compound word or in the case of two words that you want to be a compound word. A hyphen indicates a fundamental link between the two words. You might call a soldering iron "red hot," but it would be more proper to indicate that "red" and "hot" are a single descriptive unit, and so you would join the two words with a hyphen.

The hyphen is also used to eliminate ambiguity and make it easier to read a short phrase that is intended to be a unit, such as "out-of-work." Compare the ease of reading two sentences:

• He is an out of work actor, although that's nearly a redundancy.
• He is an out-of-work actor, although that's nearly a redundancy.

The second sentence is slightly easier to parse, making the sentence more smoothly communicative. And since the point of language is communication, that's a good thing!

I hope this has been helpful.--^talk 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I've been consistently using those correctly, even though I wasn't aware of their proper names. - Grant (Talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, AD. I really appreciate it. That was quite informational and pretty much told me everything I wanted to know.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to help.--^talk 18:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What about numbers? Three hundred-fifty-six? Three hundred fifty-six? Something else entirely?--"Shut up, Brx." 23:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously not AD, but I'd go with "three hundred fifty-six" according to WP's MOS, since RW's MOS entry on the subject is pretty skimpy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

- – — I'd characterize dashes as typographic conventions rather than punctuation marks, but style manuals and typography nerds are not always in lock step and I'm not sure the distinction matters for most purposes except to highlight that these glyphs are used for quite different purposes. I use em and en dashes differently in my professional writing. Em dashes connect thoughts. En dashes separate ranges and indicate versus (35–65, evolution–creation). There are differences of opinion among style manuals and typography nerds like Robert Bringhurst and Erik Spiekermann about whether you set em dashes off with spaces — I prefer spaces. AD used an en dash where I would have used an em dash — he also used spaces. Check out: [3], [4], but see ,[5]. Typography is so much fun that I forgot what a loathsome shit you are. How about that?! 00:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd say dashes are punctuation and typographical conventions both, but you're right that there's a diversity of opinion on them otherwise. Many people employ em-dashes to join thoughts and en-dashes for utility purposes, and Wikipedia's entry on the matter suggests such. But I thought it was most important here to highlight the difference between dashes and hyphens, and to explain the distinction. The finer points about which of the five dashes to use at a given time are purely a matter of taste. In point of fact, it was common for a long while to just use extra hyphens to indicate dashes -- like this! I would always use spaces, personally—I think it doesn't look right, otherwise, but it's a matter of taste.

As for numbers, Brx, I'd say that you would only join the compound word for the tens and ones digits. Three-hundred-and-sixty-six would look awkward, while three hundred and sixty-six does not. I'm not sure why: it might be just what's usual and so what looks "right," or it might be the fact that we build such large numbers by adding the intuitively easy 1-99 number (forty-two, ninety-six, etc.) to a larger number (two hundred, four thousand, etc.) That's why it's six thousand and twenty-four.--^talk 14:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I have to look up when em and en dashes came into use and under what circumstances. The -- convention was intended to simulate the em or en dash on a typewriter, which obviously had a limited set of glyphs. There's no excuse if you're using a computer and know what em and en dashes are. What are the other two of the five dashes you mentioned? 15:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The various sorts of horizontal lines that can be deployed are the hyphen, en dash, em dash, underscore, bar, minus, and figure dash. Of these, I think that the en dash, em dash, bar, minus, and figure dash are considered "dashes," but really that's just arbitrary. And of course really there's like a dozen more things like it, I think, since computery stuff has birthed all sorts of lengths of dashes that are different by nothing more than fiat and outdated convention.

If you want the final word from someone who is seriously preoccupied with typographical convention, you want Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style, which I have had the pleasure of consulting but do not have on hand. In there, you'll read fascinating things about why the dash is not technically a punctuation mark (even though I would always always call it one because elaborate Linnaean categorization in typography is not very useful and just operates as an obstacle).

For Brx's purposes: there are hyphens and two kinds of dashes for writing, and don't worry about the rest yet (or ever).--^talk 18:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to commonly used glyphs. Yeah, there are tons of additional glyphs that might qualify as dashes. I referred to Bringhurst up there. I spent a long time tuning some of my legal writing Word templates and web typography CSS files to apply Bringhurst's suggestions about type size ratios, line heights, indents, justification, dashes, proper quotation mark glyphs, etc. Elements of Typographic Style is a constant reference and one of my favorite books. 18:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! You seem to know more about this than I do :) You have true dedication to your craft, if you spent so much time making sure that the text was laid out so well.--^talk 19:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You were already registered

[6]--"Shut up, Brx." 00:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

An election so good he was inspired to vote twice. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) --^talk 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Email

I replied to your email, although I believe you once said you blocked my address, so if you haven't received it that's probably why--"Shut up, Brx." 19:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Sorry to disappoint you, Dad. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I know that you're probably tired of playing the savior/voice of reason/nice guy/et al

But I do hope you've been paying attention to what's going on here. Have you received my email? Have you looked at the Chicken Coop, and Talk:All thing in moderation? There's some shit going on again. It might take you a bit to sort through, I'm afraid.

The gist of it is, I've been blocked and had my user rights removed by Nutty Roux/Former Editor and Reckless Noise Symphony. Opinions and what not can be found on User talk:Tielec01 and User talk:Reckless Noise Symphony, as well as the coop and ATIM.

Also, Nutty Roux's gone and locked a bunch of things, to prevent me from editing through proxies. Seems pretty fucked up, from my point of view.--SillyBrx (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That board thing.

Nominated. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You just archived an active Coop

<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I know. It was dumb. I'm a mod, and it's apparent that entire maelstrom of partisan fury is boiling up over everything. It's exactly my role's purpose to do what I did. Going to solve the Zionism thing, too. You're welcome.--^talk 21:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

AD, I'd like to know how it is you propose to "solve the Zionism thing?" You don't know me, but I put a great deal of work into a very much unfinished Zionism article that I and two other users are still working on. (Paravant wanted it offered before it was done and still rough; I should have resisted that request.) Where there were ten references, there are now over 60. While we were working on this version, those who took a different view were supposed to work on the old one, or start over. They did neither. That is to say, I am the workhorse here, and I frankly am not pleased to have all my toil simply dismissed from on high. Moreover, I know a great deal about the topic. Do you?---Mona- (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A decisive vote one way or another should settle it. But I remain intrigued by your "more references automatically make it better" argument.--^talk 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a decisive vote. I wonder if Mona would feel the same way if a Creationist sited a mass of Creationist sources in an argument. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A decisive vote as in "a landslide one way or the other" is unlikely to happen. A considerable minority will be unhappy, no matter the outcome... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am entirely comfortable with that result.--^talk 19:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated!

Over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:05, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

problem with user

Hello AD

I made a major update to the Transcendental Meditation, and this guys, "Ymir" clears it just like at wikipedia. He removed all the true information from there too, to save his guru...

Maybe it sound unbelievable at first blink but I have researched TM movement for about 23 years, since 1992 august, what I wrote is all valid, I have contacted with CIA, FBI, National Defenses, Europan Union in this matter, please dont allow this Ymir to revert in the name of TM movement.

Thanks!^{— Unsigned, by: Losbellos / talk / contribs}

Want to be a moderator?

I've nominated you in the upcoming moderator elections. You can accept, decline or ignore it at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Newbie looking for help.

Hey! My description for my userpage isn't being allowed because it apparently matches the $1 filter. I don't know what the issue is, but guaranteed I mean no harm, and would like an evaluation as soon as you can give one. Thank you for taking the time to read this, sincerely, SID 6581.

I challenge you to a debate

I anticipate a cowardly refusal.^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

AD hasn't done anything on RationalWiki since July. Christopher (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did he go though? Is he so cowardly? ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}