arteteco @arteteco@qoto.org

@strypey I see your point of supporting FOSS supporting people, respect for that.

Just a little point.

The most common laptops shipped with linux here also have the option to buy it with windows.

At that point, what is better: getting the linux one and having to reinstall anyway to do FDE or whatever, or the windows one, get 50 bucks back AND be a pain in the ass to the producer because of their choice of using microsoft? Maybe that can help pushing in a different direction too...

I may be wrong though, I often am

@Surasanji I appreciate it nonetheless =)

@mcmoots Hi,
I've done many buckets to experiment, and I used wasted oil as nutrient for 2 buckets, in an attempt to recover the calories. For some reason, the ones with the oil are all gone bad... I reckon the idea was good, but not enough air passing by. I may try with something to give a more balanced texture.

This ones with cardboard are with cardboard only, to see if there is everything the mushroom needs to grow from there.

I've never used garden trims, also because they are variable and woody often, but I could select some leaves... that's a good idea.

Coffee grounds are great in places where starbucks gives them out for free in massive amount, but storing those coffee grounds that I produce myself is difficult, after a little while other mushrooms and molds attack them.

Do you use plastic bags as container? Or any other reusable thing? Those buckets I use are just for test, too small to give a significant yield...

@jasper Welcome here!

@strypey In Europe if you don't accept the Windows license at the start you can contact the manifacturer and get your money back for the price of the software. That is a reason to keep buying windows pcs, if they are the same price. Asus in my experience works.

seems like the experiment of growing oyster mushrooms on simple recycled cardboard is going good, they are pinning easily... not sure how nutritious they'll come up to be though. Any idea on how the boost it?

@johnadams
Well, welcome!

@heurekus

@neverfadingwood
Sounds like Pratchett to me...

@taoeffect@mstdn.io You mean national geographic is unreliable? I'm just checking the sources, they are pretty normal here: CNN, BBC, The Guardian, Washington post, NYTimes... if you want to propose a modification on WP:RS to consider those sources unreliable you'll have to define what you mean by reliable and what not, and if you take away big newspaper, exclude small ones because of course they are unchecked... what's left? Primary sources?

@taoeffect@mstdn.io Let's get this straight.

You made a post about how pages on wikipedia are filled with lies.

I asked you to point me some unreliable source, so that I could try to fix it. You didn't.
You posted me some other source. The once I could check were not reliable themselves.

How is this "Spoon feeding you everything you need to do the right thing and then having to listen to your bullshit." and more important, what does it mean?

@mkwadee Yep, I added it, that's what I meant to say =D

@mkwadee Yep, it's like a template you add and it automatically index pages, is in the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Cycle_Route_27

:)

@mkwadee I think we could also remove the notability standard template on that page... seems like a good page

@mkwadee To which wiki, sorry?

@mkwadee Added it to the cycle wikiproject, added the Cycleways in England Category.

Great job, thanks!

@taoeffect@mstdn.io I don't really like how you cherrypick through what I write. It took me some time to check all your sources and watch the documents to try to fix a page you care for, and you are just pointing out how my uselessness was expected and how I don't know enough? It's frankly frustrating.

The sources I highlighted are anyway not reliable or available (2, 4, 4.1), the other 3 (2 videos of hours and the FEMA report) are the ones I couldn't understand, try to write in the discussion page and see why they find them unreliable.

Hope this helps more.

@taoeffect@mstdn.io

Ok, I was thinking more of pointing out unreliable sources in the page as it is right now, not a list of links which include many hours of videos and articles in physics, which is not really my field =D

I usually just write in naturalist articles, I can try to make sense of the sources you link just in term of reliability, but I wouldn't push those sources in the page unless I am sure about it.

For example:
[2], europhysicsnews, seems like does not have any peer review on the journal and wouldn't be considered a reliable source by any standard in wikipedia, regardless of the article (also check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_62#Europhysics_News )

[4] Video is not available
[4.1] and others quote wikipedia, which is not to be used as a source, and is weird since you are directly accusing it of being unreliable and intentionally false in the first place

Others are hours long videos or long papers on physics which, with all my good will, but don't have the knowledge or time to watch and study.

Can't really help you here, I'm out of my depth in knowledge and can't watch many hours of videos to make sense of it. Meanwhile, I don't see partiality on the page, and the archives are very, very long, but a good read to see why a source was or was not added.

Just as a note to your website: would be better to point directly to the source instead of your tweet which itself links to the source.

FTR: I have no position on the 9/11 happenings, I don't want to insinuate you are wrong, or that you are right. I just don't know enough about it

@taoeffect@mstdn.io If you can help me to verify that quicker, can you point me out 2-3 not true things written on wikipedia about both topics? I don't feel like skimming through all sources if you've already done the job. I can see if I can correct that, in case

@taoeffect@mstdn.io care to elaborate that? I provided a reason for saying that, in the need of sources and in the public debate over what to put in the page and what not

I feel weird when stuff I say is quoted out of context =D

@taoeffect@mstdn.io

Any opinion of anyone who read the article?

I'm a hobbyist writer and I found the community to be quite well balanced so far, but I edit in non-controversial stuff.

I see two points are crossing in this article, which I don't like: the money and political stuff (like money from the foundation going to privates and so on) and the impartiality of the pages. This are two different matters.

The matter of corruption in the wikimedia foundation is serious and I do not have the time to explore it all right now, but I'll surely take the time in this days.

The impartiality of the pages is a matter of how the community reacts to manipulation, which is more close to what I am in contact with.

In the article it quotes AstraZeneca, which at a quick read seems alright. Quotes an article which was vandalized for a bit too long, which I mean, happens.

Wikipedia feels to me quite neutral, basically. It is a tertiary source, so it can't come up with stuff, and the source is all that matters.

The problem in political pages is what to include and what not, and that is why the best source of information is the Talk page, not the article itself, IMO =D

In any case, the technology of wikipedia is prone to abuse. It is centralized, it doesn't have players to put each one in check, and sometimes I'm even surprised of how far we are going with the tools we are using on it.