Talk:Barbara Shack

From RationalWikiWiki

Fucking cop-out. RWW is no longer an honest record of the goings on, if they let users at RW censor articles on them. Piss off. human^{be in} 00:41, 15 March 2008 (EST)

I was actually counting on you to restore the article. I blanked it to endear myself to her as an agent of goodwill. Calm her down, show her we're nice, and then back to business. The last thing I wanted her to do was go all SlimVirgin on us. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 04:59, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Ah, ok. Well, I did manage to re-create it, and of course rant about your kowtowing ;) human^{be in} 00:21, 17 March 2008 (EST)

You know... there are actually wikis not on the internet... there is a food called "wikipedia", and there's the wiki-wiki bus (which inspired the name of the software) and heaps more ;) --Ryan 22:50, 16 March 2008 (EST)

Does the wiki-wiki bus suffer from edit wars? I think the intent of the phrase was to refer to the applications we are all using. Better to the point, there are private wikis that acttually are not on the internet - they are on intranets or even just local networks. human^{be in} 00:21, 17 March 2008 (EST)

Yes, I know, just saying --Ryan 01:01, 17 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] writing style section

I think it's a bit unfair (especially considering the weak example used, which isn't even from RW) to make a big deal out of this, since many of us on RW are challenged in some way in our writing style. We all act (as on any wiki) as each others' proofreaders and copyeditors. As long as the meaning is reasonably clear, it shouldn't matter much. Icewedge is spelling-impaired, yet has built a couple of good on-topic articles. Trent forgets to use commas and splits compound words all the time. Eira, although not as active of late, tends to use too many words. But just as with Barbara, these contributions are valuable and can readily be improved. human^{be in} 15:20, 17 March 2008 (EST)

Her style strikes me as notably impaired, though. Think of the Magdalene laundries article --- when was the last time an RW editor submitted a piece of work like that? Requiring a nine thousand bit cut? Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 02:57, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Oh, I absolutely agree (having been the one who pared that pustule down). Why not use it as the example? There were some incredibly redundant sections in the middle, as I recall, that might make good quotes. By the way, you might want to mention her tendency to paste in the same edit to as many articles as possible, or to add an article to every wiki she can find (we were at least the third to get the Laundry article). There is a certain determination in her modus operandi that parallels her short declarative sentences and the way she often ignores context when adding little bits to articles. human^{be in} 16:45, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

[edit] Burn in Hell Award

Before you take anything personally, the "Burn in Hell Award" has been been given to all the convinced atheists on the understanding that they know that Hell doesn't exist.--FalseFlag 16:32, 26 March 2008 (CDT)