Talk:Main Page/Archive7

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

Positive news

Hey, that vaccination stuff just might work! Whoda thunk it? Well, at least the liberal media sees it that way. Child mortality drops, with vaccination playing a major role. NY Times, BBC. Maybe fodder for a "NOT according to (ahem) some people" section?--Bayes^update 22:14, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Well, we have vaccination articles - how about figuring out a way to incorporate the links there? We are" the "NOT according to (ahem) some people"!!! human^{be in} 23:20, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Yeah but then I'd have to make an effort beyond throwing stuff up on this page! OK, point taken.--Bayes^update 09:03, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

How about another section? "Meanwhile, in the Reality-Based Community...." ? --Gulik 11:28, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

We could then just have links to Nature, New Scientist, JAMA, etc... human^{be in} 12:24, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

A change in time zone supremacy

I see the Central Time Zone's supremacy has been thwarted for the Mountain Time Zone. (I've only ever lived in Eastern or Pacific--sigh...). Oh, well; I guess the plains-states users need some sort of supremacy in their lives. We'll send some acid rain and greenhouse gases your way. VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 07:03, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota

Anybody else getting this?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 11:19, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I will be addressing this shortly. 130.113.218.226 11:45, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, I have, but at least it says it's based on "a rolling sixty second" thing, so you wait a minute or so and then things work. A pain, but sort of livable. human^{be in} 13:51, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I had the impression that it was substantially greater than 60 seconds. But I didn't have a stopwatch on it.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 14:07, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

domain name

We are RationalWiki.com again! human^{be in} 13:51, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Now, when do we get rid of this part of our urls: "~rationa4/index.php?title="? Whine, whine, whine... human^{be in} 14:10, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

concur in the whining. But a huge huzzah foe Trent and Internet gnomes!αmεσ (!) 14:17, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, all hail Trent. And we have our little favicon wikibrains back! Also, has anyone else noticed, this server is faster? Maybe a good 25% or so? human^{be in} 14:30, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Everyone should go read RationalWiki:Community Page for some explanation about the CPU issues and whats going to happen next. 130.113.218.226 14:31, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

We should add a link to the noticeboard or sumthin... human^{be in} 14:34, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

For some reason my iPhone but not my laptop can access RW. Why's that?αmεσ (!) 14:58, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

does the iphone use a different ISP? 130.113.218.226 15:01, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

ISPs cache stuff, including domain name/IP associations. Not all ISPs have got the new IP yet for RW.com. See also, the whiners on the forums ;) human^{be in} 16:03, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

<whine>like me!</whine> VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 16:24, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

<whine>And I'm still locked out from the forums. God alone knows what you people are doing in there when I'm not around. :-( </whine> --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:57, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

A site we may be interested in...

EvoWiki. Could try to get some contributor cross-over. They have a lot of pretty high-quality stuff, like this, specifically. They've been around for a while longer, and have even attracted the enmity of CreationWiki, which I think is a goal to which we should strive! Maybe we could ask them for help? I have...-αmεσ (!) 20:30, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

They seem quite professional - but not that active. But it would certainly be welcome if any of their editors wanted to contribute over here.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 06:20, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Conservapedia Boycott

Just because I'm hopelessly incompetent at understanding these sorts of things: does this "boycott" basically just consist of not going to Conservapedia at all for September... 15-16 and onwards?

Actually, I think it's not a bad idea. I probably boost their "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page up about two dozen views a day...

Anyway, is this the idea/timeframe, or am I once again missing something? Feebas factor 20:04, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, stay away, stay away. You do what you can Feebas, you do what you can. I'm already tapping my fingers on the table...staring into the middle distance. But I'm confident I can give up the Conservacrack. DogP 21:00, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

RW userboxen on WP

Any of our resident WPans have RW userboxen on their page?--PalMD^{-Berate Me} 20:14, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Not I, no. Hmmm, brains.... human^{be in} 20:17, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Did we lose part of the database.

Some edits I may last night have disaperd. And edits user:human made to *talk:c-decay* have vanished as well. What is happening? - Icewedge 13:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

an 8 hour roll back. 24.141.169.255 13:40, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I hope not too much of our brilliant work was lost. I wonder what I said on talk c-decay? human^{be in} 15:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Nope, but it was awesome, dude. 82.214.228.19 15:45, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Wait, yes, I now remember proving Fermat's Last Theorem using Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for Andy's maths class! Damn, I was drunk and didn't make any other copies! human^{be in} 16:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Don't for get that amazing disproof of Gödel. 24.141.169.255 16:02, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Skeptics' Circle

Whoever is in touch with them should maybe send them an updated link? They link to our very temporary IP host (which now just gives 404s)... --Sid 20:56, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I emailed the current SC host.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 21:18, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Are we making a mistake?

Recently, many new articles have been springing up. Many of these were created simply to remove red links. As a result, many of these either:

1. Need expansion and RWification, but are unmarked as so
2. Are not serious and should be moved to the Fun namespace, or
3. Are not articles that RationalWiki needs (and should be either deleted or Fun'ed)

My question is, are we making a mistake with deredlinking so much at once with low quality, low length articles? Is it lowering the quality of RationalWiki's mainspace? Granted, some of these are a decent length and are very good, but many of these are short and pointless. For instance, the six or seven articles on the different versions of the bible all have the exact same (uninformative) text. My worry is that newcomers using the random page feature will see these articles and get the wrong idea. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:27, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Did anyone else read this intelligent comment--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 22:09, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Yup! & by & large I agree with it. At least stub 'em. SJG^sjg 22:14, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Just now, yeah. Ah, I'm going to go with my (considerable) gut and say that short (oft times humorous) pieces make for good starting points. [[Redlinks]] are easier to write when someone else has gone to the trouble to make it blue. You don't like what's there? Change it(!), it's a WIKI. We didn't have an article fer water fer chissakes, until ten minutes ago. I do "funny" because that's how my mind works, (or doesn't). Feeel free to hack away at mine missives, that's why I put them there, so someone more smarter can seez the day and carpe my crap up. CЯacke® 22:17, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah...be sure to read this too. CЯacke® 22:20, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

<snark>

mmm, so:

"What you've got to do is look busy. Don't bother about leaving a mess, someone will come along to clean up."

SJG^sjg 22:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

</snark>

p.s. We need an article on water? SJG^sjg

Can't see why. It's probably linked from something like homeopathy or something. I think for stuff like that, we're better off just linking to WP and getting it over with. --Kels 22:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

The "solution" (OMGZ! sorry) there would have simply been to unlink it. human^{be in} 02:17, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

I noticed several links where "earth" is actually wikilinked to "water". Genghis Khant 01:14, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Linked to fun:water, you mean. Did you read it? Does it make sense after reading it? human^{be in} 01:54, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

( I now have a mental picture of Cracker -

the guy in The Simpsons..!

You know ...!

The one in the shop ...

No, not Ah Poo (?) ...

The comic shop!

He's the guy who runs the comic shop!!

) SJG^sjg 08:45, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts and some ideas on how to proceed:

First I don't have a problem per say with having short articles, I know the random page function is fun and sometimes it worth playing with but I do not get my primary material from any wiki from the random page function. That comes from intrawiki linking and things like our best of RW. However, when I am reading an article and I see a topic of interest and its blue all ready I usually don't follow it. If it was red I might have gone and wrote an article about it. A lot of really short blue links never get expanded because of the assumption that the work is done. We need a way to mark all the stubs and also a way to pull out the really short stuff that might not be worth having.

My proposal? Well I am on an automation kick, why don't I construct a bot that will place a "stub" template on anything smaller than a certain size in the mainspace, and if something is very small it puts it in a "very small article" category. This means when people want to look for something to do they could go manually through the very small article category and delete stuff or expand stuff or move stuff.

Thoughts? 130.113.218.226 12:28, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Make it so! SJG^sjg 12:38, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Sounds cool to me.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 12:41, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Collaboration

Should we start a collaboration of the {week, half-month, month}? It seems we've been doing a lot of moving and minor improvements--which is great--but we could work on a good new article, or significantly improve a current one. Thoughts? VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 11:59, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Good idea, but: depends on individual's knowledge of the subject in question. I don't know that we've a big enough editor count to be really useful. SJG^sjg 12:19, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

It just seems we've moved from debunking pseudoscience to being just anti-CP again. That's fine, but makes the wiki's relevance a lot less than it could be. Any other ideas to encourage new, meatier content? VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 13:38, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

One reason for that is we get a small but steady trickle of new editors arriving after a few bouts at CP, and this seems to them to be the perfect place to vent. And even our more veteran editors include a substantial number of CP-addicts. I agree, with all above, what we need is someone to go find something at, say AIG, that we can build one of our famous sid-by-side rebuttals to, and then do it again, and again. human^{be in} 14:40, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm just concerned about long term prospects--are these editors sticking around? Is this ever going to grow, or are we starting to stagnate a bit? VirileSterile^{blah, blah, blah} 17:53, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd start helping happily on refuting an AiG thing. Whats their most egregious pile of crap? Start there. Any votes? Also I'd like to start tackling some of rhe GOP pres candidates. Tonights debate may be a good starting point. Forgive typos-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 17:58, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Especially the ones that "don't believe in evolution"? Seems like a rich lode to mine. human^{be in} 18:14, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Nothing new under the sun

This is interesting, maybe we can parasitize ides and/or editor? tmtoulouse ^annoy 22:43, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

www.tapeworm.org! I feel like parasite now... human^{be in} 23:04, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if all us various rational/sceptic sites should band together into one mega-rationall wiki? We'd present a MUCH stronger front if we combined forces. Mind you, many of the more sober sites might not like our sad addiction to yuks and lulz. DogP 20:08, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I liked that site, maybe we can get them and a few other decent ones (if we qualify as such!) to create some "special" link swap with us? Like low on the left column of the wikimenu, perhaps? human^{be in} 20:14, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Spam compromise?

At the moment 90 percent of our spam comes from anonymous IPs. We have decided we don't want to "block" anonymous editing, but maybe a compromise might be in order. I propose that we install a CAPTCHA code for editing for anonymous IP users only. That should curtail the spam, keep IPs open for legitimate users with only a little irritation, warn us if we are "logged out", and not effect exisiting registered users in anyway....thoughts? tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:12, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me - at least it would if I understood it. SJG^sjg 19:18, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

It's one of those things where the person has to type in the (distorted) letters they see in an image to prove they aren't a machine. And as Trent said, it will be invisible to logged-in editors. human^{be in} 19:22, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

This is a fairly important decision...I want to make sure its well understood, what part is unclear? tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:20, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Fine with me. Good idea, in fact. Might encourage IP lurkers to join up. Just don't make them do math problems... human^{be in} 19:22, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I went ahead and installed this, and it will appear in two cases, the first is an anonymous user who posts an external link, the second is during account creation. We can see how this works out, I can expand it to appear whenever an anonymous edit is made if we want and can remove it from the account creation if we want. Up to yo guys. tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:40, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Bug report: I got the red CAPTCHA box for this edit. --Sid 20:13, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

(And another CAPTCHA check for the above post.) --Sid 20:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Should be fixed now. tmtoulouse ^annoy 21:02, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

This is a test. It worked fine for me (no CAPTHKCHA). human^{be in} 21:24, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

It was a permission problem for normal users, sysops were skipped so I didn't notice. But it should be fixed. tmtoulouse ^annoy 21:44, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah yes, seems to work just as advertised. :) Thanks! --Sid 11:04, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

E-mail?

I just made an account at CP, and I found that if you didn't put your E-mail, it still let's you create an account. Is this a bug? 204.137.64.112 14:19, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Possible Article

It seems that the endless parade of CP front page nonsense should almost get it's own page..... Save what's going on page for the stuff that's gonna last... Just a thought SirChuckB 19:57, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Front page stuff lasts, as long as the link is set up right. We have best of for the really good stuff, wigo is more ephemereal - like the cp front page. And this stuff is all very low priority anyway, except for a few people who are CP-OCD... human^{be in} 20:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Ahmadinejad in the news

Probably not the best place to mention it, but I find this article from Yahoo interesting. First of all, Columbia U's President called Ahmadinejad a "dictator" even though he wields little power in the country compared to the Supreme Leader, who is more the dictator there (this is the main reason why Ahmadinejad's predecessor, the more reform-minded Khatami, was unable to reform the nation much). And, as I'm always a fan of people who misuse the term "literally," Lieberman says Ahmadinejad "comes literally with blood on his hands." Fantastic. You'd think he'd have time to wash up before such an important visit. DickTurpis 10:50, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Proud of us.

I was thinking about it, and how far the project has come, and you guys all kick ass. Sorry for sounding cliche, but really, it's great that (1) we get so much under Conservapedia's skin, even by just existing, and that (2) we're getting awesomer independent of them. Win.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

That, and the great new editors/admins in the last few months, the de-redding campaign, some of which actually produced good articles, and Trent's server magic.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 22:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking in large part of Trent's server magic, and how well the community survived that, and was even improved.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:28, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Now all we need is a wealthy benefactor. Although I'd prefer just to have more editors.--PalMD^{-Oy, mein tukhas!} 22:31, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Although I spend most of my time lurking, I have to agree, there's a slow but sure retreat from CP (although watching their internal wars is fun). As the US election moves into gear I can envisage it taking over a bit.
RANT:
There are so many whackjobs on the net that need countering I feel we are duty bound to continue: to provide a growing RATIONAL alternative.
Over here in the UK we're beginning to get creationist & allied crap showing its head - they even have some (thankfully not a lot) education influence. We have a system of education that subsidises faith schools on condition that they don't select on faith grounds! How stupid is that? We've a growing membership this side of the pond but we need to push a bit more - the American weighting is still obvious.

Oh! & well done Trent - goes without saying! Susan^{talk to me} 22:50, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Will it help if I call thermionic vacuum tubes "valves" in "audio woo"? human^{be in} 23:00, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Headshot. Sorry, I just thought this discussion could use some video game commentary. - Icewedge 23:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Fa fux sake - I'm 63 - the only video game I've ever played is PONG! Susan^{talk to me} 23:27, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I remember Pong. I even remember it being marketed as a "date game". These days, Half-Life 2 and classic SNES is more my speed. --Kels 23:28, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

In my experience there's no such thing as a date game. There are a few games you can play with girlfriends (Worms 2)... but not as a date...-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:33, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, the advertising tried to sell it as something to break the ice when you bring your date home, then once you're both relaxed you can go from there. Never worked that way, of course. --Kels 23:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

When you've both relaxed and at home you play... PONG? Is that what they call it these days?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, they used to market Minesweeper as a tool to get you accustomed to using the mouse. Seriously. --Kels 23:40, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Well I started on a sinclair(Timex?) Z80 in 1979 - We had text adventure games back then - problem soving & minor d&d stuff, they came in about the same time as pong.Trouble was the men did't like being beaten - counterproductive. Susan^{talk to me} 23:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Yanking chains is more fun than adding kewlness, eh, I'll do both. 1973, HP timeshared Basic. I also have an "antique" catalog from what became "Tweeter, Etc.". On the cover, the delightful late seventies couple have a wonderful SOTA system, a leather couch pit thing, and are playing on their giant projection screen? PONG! Shit. Kids these days... human^{be in} 01:10, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

PS, I forget to mention, clinnking glasses, champagne all around - yeah, we've done good. We can do better, but for a new wiki this thing is the balls/testicles/ovaries. It helped that when we started out we had 15-25 relatively devoted, invested editors, as opposed to one geek trying to make his/her blog famous. So, I second the original sentiment: Well done, each and every one of you!!!. Goatspeed :) human^{be in} 01:13, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

1966 started at a finance company with a room sized system using some sort of assembler code - we used to draw 'pictures' in characters on line printers. Went on to COBOL& FORTRAN @ Hull uni (tech not student) before returning to industry. Played with all sorts of games 'till the violence crept in - ole pacifist that I am. Susan^{talk to me} 01:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT) ps - need more (faster) soldiers to (wo)man the battlements. It's tedious @ my speed. Susan^{talk to me}

Random thought

The Conservapedia Podcast. Could it ever be done? Would we ever want it to be done?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 23:37, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Missing Nose

Just a rhetorical question....Which is the irrational part about the muslim with the missing nose? The fact he was scouting for wife #3 or that they bit his nose off? Kamuy8 09:13, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the irrational part is the blanket assumption that all Muslim women are docile sheep who do whatever any man tells them to do. As a Muslim man, I can confirm this is *definitely* not true. Stile4aly 00:10, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Stile4aly, you come out in public in teh USAUSAUASUASUASUASU as a Muslim. That must suck. Anyway... an old girlfriend of mine who had a soft spot, let's say, for Arabian men... ran into many vacation plan troubles in 2002 (with her boyfriend, Mohammed, et al. Shit, Christ, and Jesus on an Easter stick! Can't we all just get along? PS, yes, I thought that "according to" was weak. human^{be in} 01:41, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You know, it's more of a pain online than it is anywhere else. You have no idea how much bile and hatred is out there, and it's something that can really cause you to lose your faith in humanity. Stile4aly 17:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Godly Bill of Rights

Whoever posted that, you just made my day. I love how the writer tries to be formal, but then slips into saying things like "You have the right to know that people will treat you like shit." Also, castration isn't cruel or unusual because the writer says it isn't.--Offeep 12:25, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I especially Love Article Four, Section Three... where the writer shows an incredible ignorance of how governmental laws work.... The national government sets the minimum and states may raise it.... Not the other way around... What a moron SirChuckB 16:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad to take credit for this one. It was submitted as an extra credit piece in Schlafly's American Government course Homework 1, which is a laugh riot in and of itself. Stile4aly 17:21, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi

Hello everyone,

My name is Feebas_factor, and I am a wikiholic. Every afternoon and every evening I compulsively check the recent changes page, my talk page, the pages where I’ve contributed, where I might contribute, anything, really. And I continue cycling through these pages far into the night. Recently I’ve started bringing a laptop into school and getting my fixes there too. My sleep cycle is a wreck and my school work and social life are suffering too.

So I turn to my friends on RationalWiki. I need an intervention. I need help. Please ban me.

In all seriousness, though... I’ve had fun, here and at CP, but it’s just become too time-consuming as of late. My will is not strong enough.

So, if it's not too much to ask: somebody please ban me from RW. Preferably for 5 days.

Thanks, and I’ll see you when I see you...

Feebas factor 04:23, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

HaHa! I know the feeling! Maybe you need a weekly membership, available only Friday nights through Sunday night....----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 04:48, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Five days seems fair, and within guidelines, for a user requested "time out". I feel for your monkey (on your back), and hope this short term solution helps you balance your priorities - and sex life. Mostly the latter. human^{be in} 05:10, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

A Question Regarding "Macroevolution"

Hi, all. A few days ago Ken/Conservative/Newt wrote this bit in reply to a question I asked him about an article that discussed research on evolution, genetics and compassion: "through the hypothesized process of macroevolution."

I'm a historian, and haven't done a science course in many years, but something about the word "macroevolution" sent my bullshit detector off. Can some explain what Kenny is getting at, here? PFoster 19:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

The first clue is the first word. The second clue is as you said. The trouble is, you looked away from Kenny's light and magic show, and that breaks his "spell", and then the questions come. ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 19:49, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

"Macroevolution" is a neologism, allowing creationists to distinguish between the (clearly proven) process of evolution within generations, and the unobservable slow change over time between species. As unobservable, the process of macroevolution is clearly erroneous, to Ken (why Ken's argument, that something unobservable is necessarily disproven, doesn't disprove Jebus is, of course, a mystery). Of course, this is a distinction without a difference; one process necessarily implies the other. -αmεσ (heckuva job!) 19:59, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Metapedia

Check the forums, old guard. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

As they used to say on NBC - "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!" PFoster 20:51, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Anyone know the Doom comic? They might find this fun (using tinyurl to prevent too much linking). -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

That article is psrodt right? Right? Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is. I wrote it.-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

LOL, Metapedia rocks. Jeb Berkeley 21:45, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Hrm. It worries me that some neo-nazis are literate enough to write an "encyclopaedia". Perhaps Conservapedia could be much, much worse. At least they're only denying science, not the holocaust. --Jeeves 22:35, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Exactly - Andy just wants to discriminate againsts, eg, Muslims. Metapedians want to kill them all. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Conservapedia has an extreme pro-minority bias, that is thankfully nonexistet on metapedia. Or ED! Jeb Berkeley 22:38, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Bias? In my metapedia? It's more likely than you think. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Perhaps some brave soul could go there and write a "examples of bias in conservapedia" essay. Sample entry: "Liberal Conservapedia fails to mention the vast conspiracy of Jews who run the world from their underground semite cave." --Jeeves 22:48, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Perfect! They would be flooded with trolls from Metapedia! LMFAO! -- --ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 23:19, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that I would want to do it, but it would be funny to make some fairly subtle edits to CP that reference Metapedia. It would eventually completely disgust any of the legitimate, yet non-fundy loon, editors of CP. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 08:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

"Legitimate, yet non-fundy loon, editors of CP."....besides Homi, there's really no such a thing, is there? PFoster 09:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Minorities

I like minorities!The Alien^{Don't tase me, Bro!!!} 00:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Earth getting bigger? Excuse me while I go laugh.

I read the article linked to about the Earth getting bigger, and it is obviously one of the biggest piles of bullshit an ignorant man has ever written. This guy obviously knows absolutely nothing about geology, aisde from the most basic tenets, like the fact that the earth is round. However, it was laugh-out-loud hilarious. I Eat Glue 13:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey man, this guy drew Batman! --Kels 13:04, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

But if the earth does not get bigger how are we to follow the bible "and be fruitful and multiply" without over crowding the planet and over using the resources? This is God's will I tell ya!-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 13:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a small world, after all... --Kels 13:14, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't read the whole thing. It was one of those "it just keeps going" sort of things. I can quite figure out what he's getting at. Is he pushing a particular agenda? It just seemed like some wacko thinks he stumbled on to the greatest discovery of all time and no one will listen. Am I missing anything? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:51, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Far as I can see, this is his "life's work", outside of his art career (which he did very well at, mind you). So probably the latter, he's a kook with the modern version of a hollow earth theory. --Kels 14:05, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Since the earth is expanding perhaps we should ask what is it expanding with? Something should be filling in the gaps. And if the answer is nothing then I want to be the first scientist to study the "lost world" found under the crust...-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:29, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

It's not even a particularly new idea. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:52, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I think he says the expansion comes from the energy inside the earth (heat) condensing into matter. I didn't say it would make sense... human^{be in} 17:55, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

According to Thomas Friedman, it is becoming flatter. I believe, however, that it is becoming more triangular. Wait...stop looking at me that way. You see, the libruls are pulling one corner, the Mooslims are pulling one corner, and the Righteous Few are pulling the other corner. Taffylicious!--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:01, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and the killer robots are involved too, im just not sure how yet. --PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:03, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

If you want more of this nonsesne, then there are a few Expanding Earth nutbags over on Usenet at talk.origins that are vastly entertaining. Don Findlay is the most active of them.:--Remarcsd 18:10, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

That's girth, girth . . . you people need to learn to listen ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 15:53, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Rainbows

How long before the Christian Right starts to push an anti rainbow agenda due to the use by certain groups? I wonder if they know it would be in conflict with biblical teachings since the rainbow was a sign from God. Perhaps these groups so hated by the Christian Right are a sign from God as well?-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:28, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy already believes that the adulteress story isn't true, mostly because it doesn't gel with his personal beliefs; it's not so far a stretch to then deny the rainbow. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

...then there's the Catholic joke about this passage wherein Jesus gets to the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line and in whizzes a chunk of forehead-smashing quartz, to which Jesus whines, "Oh Mom! Do you have to do that everytime"?

New logo?

Doesn't work for me. human^{be in} 15:29, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Pedophagia is part of our basic creed.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 15:31, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually liberapedia just put up their "slightly" adulterated version of our logo at http://www.liberapedia.com/index.php?title=RationalWiki . Was it one of us? --Bob^{'s your uncle} 14:48, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

OMG that should be our real logo.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 14:53, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Should we steal it for a few days?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 14:56, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we should, with permission...-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 15:03, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

It must be ours! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:33, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Very cool. Now we need RationalWiki:alternative logos for the wacky ones I made, and this one... have there been any others? human^{be in} 18:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT) Image:LP Rational.png is where I put it.

How about a goat with a giant brain? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:47, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism

Our main page proudly states that we have a vigorous discussion on vandalism - but provides no link to said discussion.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 05:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

OK - now it does.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 11:07, 9 October 2007 (EDT)