Chaos

Yeah I think it is related to the fatal error issue.

Ooooops well it is fixed now. LOOK THE ENTIRELY ARBITRARY RULES ARE THREE CHAPTERS A DAY sheesh come on

NutiketAiel, have an upvote. That was well-reasoned. However, I do think this does come down to a difference of opinion. I truly do feel that this sort of content does add a lot. I respect your opinion, though totally disagree

Best. Writeup. Ever. (Not)

I'm sorry! I've been really busy and exhausted this week. It's really the writeups that take time. But yes, next one is coming up very shortly! With, uh, a "well thought out" write up... Look, when I said there'd be a holiday break and we'd back in the New Year, we never specified which year we would return...

I haven't updated the negative reputation levels, actually. There will be rep levels lower than Zucchini, immortalizing some of our favorite banned members in horribleness.

You haven't seen it yet. The rank, I mean.

Man it'd be terrible for you to have more and more power and become a Shard. That'd be terrible! (Joking aside, there is not a way for you to choose the one you want to keep.)

Oh, it's you. Hah. Thank you for misinterpreting the rules, as always. I'm sure I can always count on you for that, Alaxel. Don't mind him. He has a vendetta against sensible discourse for some reason and continues to make accounts to cause trouble, instead of going away quietly.

I don't know what you're talking about. It totally is if you're kind and reasonable. Say, you sound like someone I've seen before.

There are no ranks from unpublished works. Well, I guess there is one, but it is public knowledge.

This was put in pretty recently. You're fine, by the way. I have been informed that the ones involving "hell" are way too restrictive, as it is Shadows for Silence in the Forests of Hell, not Forests of Calamity. The others are funny though.

As the author of that section of Allomancy (and almost the entirety of the article in its current form, with exception of some questionable edits I later saw), I feel the need to defend this practice. In the specific thing you had issue with (the other few cite tags are things that I know to be factual, but still need their citations): The bolded part is the jump in logic, the part that is not directly confirmed by Brandon, but pretty implied, in my opinion. This paragraph provides critical information on the subject of Allomancy. Do you know how many people, back in the day, were confused by the question of why, exactly, Allomancy is of Preservation? A great deal. That was why I had to include this paragraph of explanation, and it does require a small leap. In fact, the argument I present here is, in fact, the argument I originally presented in my Principle of Intent. Yes, it is a small supposition, but I do think it gives a good context on why things work. The cosmere is very logical, and if a person comes out of an article thinking that something does not make sense, we've failed. Some day I'm going to write a Realmatic Theory article, and it's going to be an awesome article. Right now the Realmatic article is utter trash. It's a placeholder article for someone to make it awesome. And honestly, I don't think there will be any way to write a truly good wiki article on Realmatics without including some theoretical thoughts on the subject. Sure, you can stick directly to the books, but I genuinely think that's doing a disservice to readers. Why? Because a wiki article, in my opinion, needs to provide a reader a full picture of what is known on the subject at hand, and that will occasionally require context. A list of facts and confirmations is a terrible wiki article. There's a flow to them that is critical. It's like an expository essay on the subject. Were I to neglect theories on Realmatics that Brandon RAFOs, but implies that we are on the right track, that is a disservice. The cosmere is freaking hard to newbies, and I feel a strong responsibility to fully educate people to the best of our combined knowledge. There's a logic and flow to the cosmere that is not immediately apparent. Let's look at some other articles with theoretical sections, and I will argue the necessity for these to exist: Southern Peoples of Scadrial: This does provide something extra to the article, and gives readers something to think about. In this case, there is no citation, and it's pure speculation. But you know, I'm very okay with that, because maybe casual readers skipped over that line, when they should probably be quite concerned with it or its implications. Ironspine Building Again, good ideas for someone to think about, and totally adds to the article. Day of Recreance This is still not an unreasonable theory. A Day of Recreance article that doesn't put some possibilities of why the Recreance happened is a bad Recreance article. It just doesn't contain all the relevant information a reader might want to know. (However, note this does not contain Words of Radiance knowledge at the moment) Investiture You might be able to get away with removing the theoretical tag here, I'll give you that. Intent This entire article is marked, and this is because of the perspective it takes. It is written providing evidence that such a thing exists. Perhaps you could rephrase it to not be like that, but I feel it's fine. Ghostbloods Again, discussing the objectives of the Ghostbloods is relevant. Note this article is particularly terrible in its current state, though. Manywar Windy wrote this one, and he could probably explain his rationale here better than I could, but this is marked as theoretical due to small leaps of logic that are marked with phrases such as "It seems". These are necessary for making this article truly great, with a proper narrative structure that explains everything we know. Skaze Once upon a time, this was less confirmed that Skaze are Splinters of Dominion. I'm still not sure that it was directly confirmed, but there's a lot of evidence supporting this that could be included in this. Ultimately, however, the conclusion is not totally confirmed, and again, this is a critical piece of information on a subject we know virtually nothing about. Oathpact A terrible article, but I think you'd be hard pressed to give a comprehensive look at the Oathpact without some theoretical discussions. Voidbringers This article is also terrible--I believe Windy has been drafting a new version--but the speculation here is very benign, and if you don't mention Odium in a Voidbringer article, it's pretty bad. Dakhor This refers to the Dakhor magic system. There are small suppositions in this article, but they are important in giving a comprehensive look at the subject. Chasm This refers to the line "The chasm is unlikely to have been caused by Odium's visit to Sel." That's supposition, but it is absolutely relevant. Elantris (city) An entirely reasonable supposition. Connecting smaller articles to the greater cosmere is always a good thing. Odium To give a full discussion on the abilities of Odium, supposition is required, and so the theory tag is required. Spren This only has the line referring to the Ryshadium, which we now know from a WoR tour signing that Investiture is related to this. This is relevant and makes readers wonder what other effects spren have. Cultivation While now there is more information on the connection with Cultivation and the Nightwatcher, this was not present before the Words of Radiance tour, hence the theory tags. And considering that we still don't know what that exact relationship is, there is still room for theories in this article. Hemalurgy The theory tag on the Bind Points section is there at my behest because I was unconvinced by Windy's analysis. It requires citations, and if there might exist speculation, I feel it is better to mark things as theoretical. But I don't think you can argue this information is not relevant--indeed, a Hemalurgy article should get into the nitty-gritty of bind points. Shardblade Read this article in a pre-Words of Radiance world and the theory tag on its respective section was a darn good one. Now most of that is factual. Windy is going to revise this, and it is wonderful. ---------------- So, that's just a sampling, but I think on the whole, you can't say that there should be no theoretical information on the Coppermind. It is absolutely relevant in certain cases, mostly cases involving cosmere implications. I very much disagree that that information should be lost, as that's antithetical to the Coppermind's purpose of being comprehensive. In this swath that I present, there are some that do add information and important context to the article. But, more importantly, shouldn't a theoretical section, in general, have a higher threshold for citations than most other subjects? In the Manywar article, which is one of the best articles on the Coppermind, there are just citations everywhere, and the article is very upfront with possible supposition. Yet, its supposition is totally relevant to the article. In the Allomancy article, there is a bit of supposition, and yet most of it is factual. The speculative part is tiny, and is a natural conclusion given the things we know. That's exactly how a theoretical section should be, especially cosmere ones! It's like saying, "here's my conclusion, but it's so well-cited and reasonable that you should believe it." And that's what you should do. Look at theory sections with a grain of salt, and if they persuade you, well cool. You've now learned something new that you wouldn't have before. The fact that I looked through, say, the Shardblade article and the theoretical knowledge is actually true reinforces my opinion that it, upon occasion, has a place on the Coppermind. You are more than welcome to come to me, Windy, or Weiry regarding specific cases of the use of the theory tag. I'm more than happy to listen and accept that changes can be made. However, on the whole, I hope I have persuaded you that including theoretical information is sometimes critical.

I believe this effect is related to the Fatal Error which still needs to be resolved. In my experience when this happens the upvote or downvote is always added. For me it can be hit or miss when it actually does refresh, but it always does the action, even if it isn't shown.

RAFOing is one of life's little pleasures.

Try deleting your cache on Chrome for Android (Settings ->Privacy). I use Chrome for everything and when I do that it works fine for me. Let me know if that does not work.

Usually, but not always.

I don't have any objection to putting theories on the Coppermind. You are completely right about the forums being a pretty poor place to store theories. My concern for putting them on the wiki is that it is entirely possible very few people will end up choosing to put their theories on the wiki. It'd have to be user-submitted, unless there was something so fantastic that another editor would like to submit in their stead. Otherwise, we just have a ton of canonical work to do. However, I do think I need to make a comment about theories in articles, which is sometimes necessary, especially in cosmere subjects. Usually this is reserved for a particular section. But look at Shard, Hoid, Cultivation, and Odium. I would argue that all the information in the theory sections there are very important. Without them, readers would not have a complete a picture as they should. There are other articles which may want to include the theoretical tag throughout the entire article, such as the Manywar article. This is because some small leaps in logic may be required to make a high quality article. (Go read that one and see what I mean) I feel that the wiki mods--Joe, Windy, Weiry, and I--will be sufficient gatekeepers to ensure that theories on articles does not get abused. Good citations are very important, but for example in the Manywar, it is not out of line to write something like "it is possible that...". I will vigorously defend the practice, because on articles like Shard or Hoid, some prominent theories are critical to properly contextualize things. As you can see from: http://coppermind.net/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Theory there aren't any cases where the theory tag is abused in articles. Anyways, that was a tangent; I generally support a Theory namespace, but there are a nonzero amount of cases when theories are very relevant in an article.

It was all a part of my master plan and Diagram. Truly, my wit knows no bound. The promotion from the rank right below 1111 and just above it has such great cosmere significance! You don't even know. Feel free to upvote me for my truly impressive wit, ego, and humbleness, so you can see what that rank is yourself. (But not Kurkistan. He has made no such Diagram! He is a pretender!)

Actually, as I say here, it was totally unintentional that it happened to be, say, after the rank it was...

Wow, great job asking questions and getting them down. So much awesome info! I suppose we now need to ask if a Dragon has picked up a Shard. It definitely sounds like Nazreloft to me. Interesting.

The Taln interlude is probably the most haunting thing I've ever read. That ending... Also, oh Feather. Missing so much from that Zahel interlude. You just skip right along Hehe. Dork.