Talk:RationalWikiWiki

From RationalWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Um, the production values are a bit low because it was just founded TODAY!

At least it seems to be growing rapidly! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:00, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Shouldn't the logo be [[[[brain]]]] instead of the normal [[brain]]? Or maybe [[brain]]2? ;) --Sid 08:22, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I suggest a picture of wp:Harvey Cushing. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)
That's a really obscurantist gag AKjeldsen.--Bobbing up 05:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you. :-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 08:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Title. Wouldn't it have been funnier (and actually more appropriate) to call this article "RationalWiki:RationalWikiWiki"? human be in 17:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks, whoever did it! human clues 15:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Contents

[edit] Infinite regression

I propose the creation of RationalWikiWikiWiki to report on the activities at RationalWikiWiki as it reports on RationalWiki which in turn is reporting on the goings on at CP while it tries to counter the "left wing bias" at WP.--Bobbing up 05:32, 28 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] WAAA

Have you lost interest in RationalWikiWki? There have been no edits in weeks :( --72.232.23.238 14:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Yup! SusanPurrrrrrr 14:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Interesting - I note that bunchanumbers used the same mispelig that is in RWW's url... Someone put out their eye! human be in 17:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Its not a mispelling, that's the maximum. TmtamesP 01:23, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] "Phail Two, RIP"

Someone needs to start up another wiki so we can have detailed analysis of this scandal. TmtamesP 00:59, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely. RationalWikiWikiWiki @ editthisinfo, anyone? All the good usernames are still available! human be in 01:12, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
"RationalWikiWikiWiki" has too many letters. TmtamesP 01:18, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
So misspell it, like they did. human be in 01:35, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Give me a good 15 letter title and I will do it. TmtamesP 01:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

RatWikiWikiWiki human sap 01:49, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

[1] TmtamesP 01:52, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] RationalWikiWiki

RWW is too snarky. It says too much about what’s bad about us as individuals. It says too much about what’s bad about us as a group. We’re not as bad as RWW makes out. We’re a rapidly growing Wiki with good articles. We need less destructive criticism and more constructive encouragement. There is always a risk here and at RWW that Christian Agent provocateurs are playing on the weaknesses of those here who are tempted to be snarky and putting us against each other. Barbara Shack 04:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

We have no reason to believe the are Christian provocateurs among us. And I think we could pick up any; the last person whose edits were interpreted as even vaguely creationist felt the wrath of RationalWiki crash down upon him and he was banned. And I think we do a fine job of pitting each other against ourselves—we don't need anyone's help.  : ) By the way, are you sure this was the most appropriate place to bring up RationalWikiWiki? It felt sort of... out of the blue. --Essayist RA Talk _Fruitcake! 05:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
But that's the whole point of an agent provocateur, isn't it? You don't realize they're agents until its... too late! Oh noes! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Where should I discuss RWW?Barbara Shack 06:25, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki_talk:RationalWikiWiki is probably best. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I've copied this from RationalWiki talk:Cat fight.Barbara Shack 07:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Whoops! Ah, sorry, I forgot what page this was on. My browser was here, my mind... somewhere else. -_- --Essayist RA Talk _Fruitcake! 01:41, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
It seems I didn't realize the page had been moved from the earlier page I made my first comment on. Which is just as bad a mistake as the post I just struck out above. --Essayist RA Talk _Fruitcake! 03:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
And I would just like to mention RW doesn't have good articles. Articles here are written from a NPOV. If I wanted to learn about something, I'd read Wikipedia or even God forbid read a book. This place is a pisstake. 134.226.1.234 12:02, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Missed the point you have. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, what? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 08:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Barbara, RWW is just another website. The fact that we know about them (and even participate) might make it seem weird. Imagine how CP feels about RW... every spelling error ends up on WIGO CP, every personal foible there is magnified on this site. And, just as CP has no control over RW, but the two sites share some editors, RW has no control over RWW, even though the two sites share some editors. If you don't like what RWW says, don't go there. Keep in mind, RWW could just as easily be some blog that we don't know exists, saying the same things (or worse). Having said that... what is your point or goal? What change do you seek to effect? human be in 11:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I want less snarkiness here and, to the extent that we have influence I want less snarkiness in RWW.Barbara Shack 13:16, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

First, have you read RationalWiki:SPOV? Second, I must note that you seemed happy to write the first, very snarky, version of gay sex. As far as RWW... well, I edit there, but play "follow the leader" on editorial content. You also edit there, so have the freedom to do whatever you can get away with to improve or alter their tone and content. Thanks for answering my question, I appreciate it. human waste 13:33, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I don’t mind being snarky about Andrew Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly and that lot. I just don’t like us being snarky against fellow freethinkers.Barbara Shack 07:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that we should not unnecessarily persecute our fellows, Barbara, but I also think we should be able to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from getting arrogant, I think. We just have to learn where to draw the line between the two. --Essayist RA Talk _Fruitcake! 08:06, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Just as we have Really Embarrassing Liberals, if a "freethinker" says or does something foolish, we can mock them just as readily as anyone else - and should do so. It adds to our credibility. Note that at least a few RationalWikians find Dawkins latest book to be less than "top shelf". And I am somteimes just as embarrassed by militant atheists as by bible thumpers. human sap 13:29, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Down?

ScribbleWiki appears to be Down. (Easter Holiday?)Marghanita Laski 20:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Might be temporary, but, yeah, the last time I tried to reload recent changes the little red light just kept flashing. human be in 20:49, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Since Midnight! (Good Friday Holiday) & it's not just RWW - Scribble itself & My wiki also. Marghanita Laski 20:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Someone left a link at wikiCP talk, something like "isitjustmeorisitdownforeveryone" or some such silliness. Might check that. Could be a revolution or nuclear war, too, of course. No need to blame Jesus and the moon. Shouldn't be an equinoctal sun blockage of a communications satellite, thought, since the equinox was really yesterday anyway. humanities 21:12, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ appears to be down for at least me. human hilarious link to my talk page goes here 21:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

"It's just you. scribblewiki.com is up." human hilarious link to my talk page goes here 21:18, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Its up now, for me at least, which reminds me I was in the process of begging for SDG files. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 21:24, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Yup! - it's back, thanx Marghanita Laski 21:25, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] They stole my logo

That was my design, to they credit it to me? There is also a liberapediapedia now, I don't know who made it, I don't the point myself. Ajuk 09:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

If you go there and bring it up at, say, talk:main, I am sure due credit will be given. Although it is known that it came from LP, the "author" may not have been noted. I'm not sure, though. By the way, it wasn't "stolen" - you gave the brainz legs, and they walked into the office on their own, sat down, smoked all our cigarettes, drank most of our booze, and refused to leave. human indefensible turds on the cheap! 12:53, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Damn those brainz! Who need 'em, anyway? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:41, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] THE IDENTITY OF HANS JOHNSON

HANS HAS MADE A MISTAKE. This and this. THE IDENTITY OF HANS JOHNSON IS KNOWN! -- Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 03:31, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I have previously connected them to the same IP a couple of months ago, on an admittedly shaky grounds; RA said the IP was his and then the IP a couple of months later made an edit to HJ talk page that it would seem only like the user would make. I have posted such speculation in a place he would have seen so perhaps this is just a deceitful attempt to confirm incorrect theories of his identity. - Icewedge (*bleet*) 04:07, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I just always assumed he was our pet juvenile delinquent, radioactive cracker person. ħuman waste 04:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
↳↑⇨↕▽← ?esaelp ,won no evom ew naC .toob ot ,ereh ti ta ylivaeh detnih dna ,egap resu aidepolcycnU sih no semit lareves oge retla sih saw snaH taht ylnepo dettimda AR .semit eht dniheb yllacigart lla er'uoY
True, but not everyone is as stalkerish well-informed as you, Cha. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:17, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
↳↑⇨↕▽← .liaf fo edam era yeht ,si ecnereffid ehT .ti ta bats gnicnivnoc ylriaf a gnivah era relletyrotS dna egdewecI
Epic called. He'd like to have his win back. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Talk:RationalWikiWiki"
Personal tools