Talk:Eira
From RationalWikiWiki
Removed "Pedantic bitch" as it's a bit strong.--False Flag 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. I see that her own RW article says this. Mmmm... Has she edited her own article I wonder? What to do? Put it back in on the basis it's her own description? Or leave it out because it sounds a bit abusive when written somewhere else? Life is full of decisions.--False Flag 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see that my revision was reversed by Enghorn with the edit comment:
- Her userbox doesn't say "pedantic, highly opinionated, etc." It says "pedantic bitch, unnecessarily verbose, etc"
- Which leaves me a bit confused as I can't see any userbox with this comment, and even if there were I can't see why it would justify it. Explanation would be nice.--False Flag 07:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Will this suffice? --Enghorn 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I was looking at the RWW stalkbox.--False Flag 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Will this suffice? --Enghorn 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I love how you're debating if you should quote me directly. :) Perhaps quotes would work best, then you don't have to afford potentially damaging my gentle ego... perhaps mentioning something about the destroyed keyboards over CP and later aSK would be appropriate... ;) --Eira 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] please don't call her a bitch
it's highly offensive to female dogs --58.163.175.131 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- *coinflip* Ty 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- That joke is so old that ancient Roman texts contain it. Oh, and DFTT. Punky McPunkersen
[edit] Why the special concession?
This version seemed quite accurate, and in keeping with the general tone at RWW (There was one sentence which stood in isolationa and could probably be cut for being overly editorial). Is this site not specifically about documenting that kind of stuff? (somewhat rhetorical:- I just checked the main page and indeed the "Goals" are as I remembered them). LowKey 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Site's in a bit of a flux right now. Ty 01:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why? 'Cuz when shit hit the fan at RW, the people of RW decided that they'd move off-Wiki to bitch at each other and brought their criticisms here. That would've been fine, but then others decided they didn't like those criticisms, started making mountains out of molehills, started threatening this site and myself via e-mails, started getting me in the middle of shit I never wanted a part of, started getting the members of this site involved in shit they otherwise had no part in, created HCMs here, there and everywhere, etc., etc., etc. Thus, I decided that if the regulars of this site want to go back to the version I reverted, go ahead. But I wish not to hear any more e-mail complaints about this site because it's a Wiki, and if Person #X doesn't like the content of Page Y, then they can go to the talkpage and discuss it without resorting to flooding my e-mail box and without making threats to have Trent or the RWF shut this place down. Thank you for bearing with my long-winded rant. Punky McPunkersen 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Big question is, who was sending Punky these emails? In the spirit of Conservaleaks, will we see an RWleaks/RWWleaks?--58.163.175.132 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Most certainly not. I'm all for transparency. But I'm not for shit-stirring. Those who took to the e-mail box know who they are and know what transpired. And, bluntly, I've learned to no longer take off-Wiki e-mails nearly as seriously as I used to. Back in the day, I considered an e-mail to me about something to be much more serious (i.e: almost life-or-death situational) than something on-Wiki because RW and RWW have always been open to people complaining on talkpages. Thus, when people went to the e-mail level to file complaints, I panicked because I thought it was far more serious than it actually turned out to be. I've learned my lesson for sure. Punky McPunkersen 12:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As an addendum, by "transparency," I mean that all RW and RWW need to know is that I had at least 200 e-mails from over a dozen and a half different users over the span of a couple weeks using me as a medium to argue and complain. I will not reveal any more than that because I do consider e-mail discussions to be absolutely private. The persons involved know damn well who they are, and that's really all the further anyone needs to know or will know. Punky McPunkersen 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you ever change your mind, I must say it'd be fun to confirm the identity of these drama queens. I suspect the usual shit-stirrers, but maybe I'd be surprised (do I have a schizoid personality that hates RWW?).--Brxbrx 14:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- E-mail discussions are absolutely private. Hmm, so I assume you have opposed Conservaleaks on that ground? Otherwise, I do think RW people often have this double-standard: one rule for CP, another for RW. Violate the privacy of CP community members if you get the chance, but the privacy of RW members is sacrosanct. Mock and attack CP sysops all day and night long, but do a tenth of the same to an RW member (or crat or board member) and it's a personal attack that must be reverted. --58.163.175.134 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is that CP is singularly evil. --85.77.11.248 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)If people really want to discuss Conservapedia so bad they can fuck off to whatever Psy's blog is called, or set up their own forum. I don't give a fuck about Conservapedia, If I had my way all mainspace references to it would have been vaped and the WIGO taken off the front page, and people would have to be an editor of something other than that page to be considered for sysopship, let alone anything else. RW members are sacred? Maybe it is because we here are fundamentally decent folks rather than laughing at madmen. I could write a hateful screed about lots of people, but I don't, cause I try to be a nice person. I don't always succeed, but I fucking try. I don't agree with everyone most of the time, but I don't hate them, life's too short. Hey BoN, where were you back we we were cleaning up this place? Ty 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ty, your disinterest in CP matters is well-known, so you are innocent of accusations of double standards. But a significant chunk of RW editors are not like u. 85, the problem with double standards and hypocrisy, is it undermines any legitimate criticisms one might have. As to the recent cleanup here, I don't care what policy RW(W) adopts, I will just demand consistency. --58.163.175.132 22:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- For your information BoN, I have nothing to do with CONservapedia. And to that end, I absolutely didn't care for the leaking of the e-mails for CONservaleaks. Naturally, you didn't hear me say it because, frankly, I had no interest in it. Any other questions, or are you done trying to pin CONservapedia nonsense on me? Punky McPunkersen 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- (EC be damned) The people here tend to care little if at all for CP. And we are our own separate entity. Why not make an account and help us in our writing of community standards, rather than complaining. Ty 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Imma place a bet that the IP is Lowkey, so they DO have an account here. Lowkey is well-known for not logging in over at RW. Punky McPunkersen 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have a piece of that. Check the IPs I edit from over at RW, and you'll see that this isn't one of mine. Also, there is a reason I do not log in at RW and that reason does not apply here. Please bet real money on this, I could use a little extra. LowKey 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- You should've waited until I closed the betting and it would've been real money. Now, it's just betting in Somallian currency. Punky McPunkersen 23:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have a piece of that. Check the IPs I edit from over at RW, and you'll see that this isn't one of mine. Also, there is a reason I do not log in at RW and that reason does not apply here. Please bet real money on this, I could use a little extra. LowKey 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. He is much too well spoken for our usual crop of idiots. Not a curse word anywhere. Ty 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Imma place a bet that the IP is Lowkey, so they DO have an account here. Lowkey is well-known for not logging in over at RW. Punky McPunkersen 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- (EC be damned) The people here tend to care little if at all for CP. And we are our own separate entity. Why not make an account and help us in our writing of community standards, rather than complaining. Ty 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- For your information BoN, I have nothing to do with CONservapedia. And to that end, I absolutely didn't care for the leaking of the e-mails for CONservaleaks. Naturally, you didn't hear me say it because, frankly, I had no interest in it. Any other questions, or are you done trying to pin CONservapedia nonsense on me? Punky McPunkersen 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ty, your disinterest in CP matters is well-known, so you are innocent of accusations of double standards. But a significant chunk of RW editors are not like u. 85, the problem with double standards and hypocrisy, is it undermines any legitimate criticisms one might have. As to the recent cleanup here, I don't care what policy RW(W) adopts, I will just demand consistency. --58.163.175.132 22:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)If people really want to discuss Conservapedia so bad they can fuck off to whatever Psy's blog is called, or set up their own forum. I don't give a fuck about Conservapedia, If I had my way all mainspace references to it would have been vaped and the WIGO taken off the front page, and people would have to be an editor of something other than that page to be considered for sysopship, let alone anything else. RW members are sacred? Maybe it is because we here are fundamentally decent folks rather than laughing at madmen. I could write a hateful screed about lots of people, but I don't, cause I try to be a nice person. I don't always succeed, but I fucking try. I don't agree with everyone most of the time, but I don't hate them, life's too short. Hey BoN, where were you back we we were cleaning up this place? Ty 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is that CP is singularly evil. --85.77.11.248 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- E-mail discussions are absolutely private. Hmm, so I assume you have opposed Conservaleaks on that ground? Otherwise, I do think RW people often have this double-standard: one rule for CP, another for RW. Violate the privacy of CP community members if you get the chance, but the privacy of RW members is sacrosanct. Mock and attack CP sysops all day and night long, but do a tenth of the same to an RW member (or crat or board member) and it's a personal attack that must be reverted. --58.163.175.134 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you ever change your mind, I must say it'd be fun to confirm the identity of these drama queens. I suspect the usual shit-stirrers, but maybe I'd be surprised (do I have a schizoid personality that hates RWW?).--Brxbrx 14:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As an addendum, by "transparency," I mean that all RW and RWW need to know is that I had at least 200 e-mails from over a dozen and a half different users over the span of a couple weeks using me as a medium to argue and complain. I will not reveal any more than that because I do consider e-mail discussions to be absolutely private. The persons involved know damn well who they are, and that's really all the further anyone needs to know or will know. Punky McPunkersen 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Most certainly not. I'm all for transparency. But I'm not for shit-stirring. Those who took to the e-mail box know who they are and know what transpired. And, bluntly, I've learned to no longer take off-Wiki e-mails nearly as seriously as I used to. Back in the day, I considered an e-mail to me about something to be much more serious (i.e: almost life-or-death situational) than something on-Wiki because RW and RWW have always been open to people complaining on talkpages. Thus, when people went to the e-mail level to file complaints, I panicked because I thought it was far more serious than it actually turned out to be. I've learned my lesson for sure. Punky McPunkersen 12:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Big question is, who was sending Punky these emails? In the spirit of Conservaleaks, will we see an RWleaks/RWWleaks?--58.163.175.132 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why? 'Cuz when shit hit the fan at RW, the people of RW decided that they'd move off-Wiki to bitch at each other and brought their criticisms here. That would've been fine, but then others decided they didn't like those criticisms, started making mountains out of molehills, started threatening this site and myself via e-mails, started getting me in the middle of shit I never wanted a part of, started getting the members of this site involved in shit they otherwise had no part in, created HCMs here, there and everywhere, etc., etc., etc. Thus, I decided that if the regulars of this site want to go back to the version I reverted, go ahead. But I wish not to hear any more e-mail complaints about this site because it's a Wiki, and if Person #X doesn't like the content of Page Y, then they can go to the talkpage and discuss it without resorting to flooding my e-mail box and without making threats to have Trent or the RWF shut this place down. Thank you for bearing with my long-winded rant. Punky McPunkersen 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Psygremlin
My problem with saying that "Psygremlin has a rather extreme dislike of Eira, and has bashed her on his blog", is it makes it sound like Eira is the innocent party in all of this, and Psygremlin the guilty one. I don't think that's true. Psygremlin went a bit overboard, but Eira is not some innocent victim with clean hands either. Maratrean 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly fond of either of them, but if I read to much the rancor depresses me. Feel free to add something about her spat with kels and stuff.. Ty 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] You're socking up for this shit?
Seriously? You can't post with your own name? What the fuck is wrong with people? TROLOLOLOLOLOL AHOY! --Eira 12:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
