Talk:Main Page

From RationalWikiWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Older discussion: Archive One

Contents

[edit] New policy

I would very much like to prevent new users from moving pages for a certain period of time, to prevent vandals like Stupid bot from burying any more of our articles. Unfortunately, given the limited nature of Scribblewiki, this is not possible. Therefore, I will be going through and locking the pages to prevent non-sysops from moving them. NORMAL EDITING WILL STILL BE UNRESTRICTED. The nature of these vandals requires that the lock be permanent. I am open to your opinions, and if any of you object I will undo the move locks. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 14:27, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

By the way, I was able to restore the history of the lost articles in a limited fashion by uploading the equivalent page histories from the old home of RWW. Obviously, this only works with page histories from before we moved to ScribbleWiki. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 14:33, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

[edit] Move to RW's server?

Tmtoulouse (in one of his many IP incarnations) suggested that we relocate to RationalWiki's server. I would like to know your thoughts on this. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:43, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

I personally have a number of concerns. I worry that the integrity of this site will be damaged. Because Tmtoulouse pays for the server, would he hold us beholden to him? If he personally objected to anything we wrote, would he use his authority to force any changes on us? Would we still be able to continue running the site as we have so far? Would RWians take this as a sign we are officially affiliated with them, and be more inclined to complain about what we write? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:43, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

Well, as far as issue one, he doesn't even do that at RW. He acts more as treasurer than owner (although his budget reports are clumsy at best!). I don't think any change would occur in how RWW runs (or doesn't). As far as RWians complaining, isn't that half the fun? humanbe in 00:44, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
Heh, all true :-) Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:35, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
  • sniff* I am offended...all those years of dating a girl who was an administrative assistant for a major business school gone to waste! 24.141.66.208 14:07, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

That said, relocating there would have advantages. Bureaucrats would be able to rename accounts, for instance (which we cannot do on Scribblewiki). Supposedly we would be able to change the localsettings.php file, which, I gather, allows one to adjust a great many things. Scribblewiki does not allow me to access the localsettins file. One thing I have my eye on is enabling interwiki linking, so we can link to RationalWiki using the prefix "RW" (similar to how one can link to Wikipedia using the WP prefix in links). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:43, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

What would the domain be? Would it be like rww.rationalwiki.com or would it be on its own separate domain like rationalwikiwiki.org --Admin 23:56, 12 July 2008 (CDT)
You would need to register a separate domain name for the site, it ranges from $3-$10 depending on what TLD and site you use. Pretty cheap really. You would then point it to my nameserver. As far as editorial control I have never once used my status as owner of the server as a bludgeon for anything published anywhere. The only time I would have to step in is if I am legally obligated, such as with a DMCA notice or court order. The chances of either of those being very slim. The only other time it would be a concern is if RWW was becoming so popular that it was sucking resources from RW. Again not likely to be a major concern. In that case I wouldn't alter content but merely "cap" your CPU cycles and the site would run slower than usual. 24.141.66.208 00:08, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
My' concern would be one of practicality with the content move. Can you guys get a database dump from scribble or anything that would allow for easy transfer of existing works? 24.141.66.208 00:09, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
No. The only option on scribblewiki is the import/export tool. One of many reasons scribblewiki sucks. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:26, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
So we would have to use it. Again. --Admin 00:36, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
I don't mind. I am quite used to tedious tasks. So if we do move, I will be the one handling any import/export tasks. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:45, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
I'm going to do some of the importing/exporting tasks to. Who's going to buy the domain name? --Admin 15:10, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
I will. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 16:34, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
I thought so :) --Admin 17:19, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

Hi. Been away for a while on other issues. If anybody is still interested in my opinion I'm all for the change.--False Flag 13:39, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

Thank you, FalseFlag. I didn't want to move without your input, and I feared I would have to wait weeks to hear from you. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 16:33, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

So when's this second move gonna happen? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? --Admin 17:21, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

What I will need is for whoever will "own" the site to send me an e-mail once the domain is purchased and I will set things up. Please post here using an account I will recognize as "in charge" when the e-mail is sent so I know it is not someone else. That e-mail will get the password and login information. 24.141.66.208 18:06, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

That should be Hans, he said he's going to be the one to purchase the domain. --Admin 18:18, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

It took awhile, but I have exported all five megs of content we have onto my computer. I will import it to the new site. In the process I have just stolen on of Hans's tasks. --Admin 19:03, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

In that case, we need to try to make it easy for people to know NOT TO EDIT until the move is over... — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs

I see that rationalwikiwiki.org now redirects to http://ns1.rationalweb.org . I'm ready to import pages at anytime once MediaWiki is installed. --Admin 15:25, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

I think I set things up properly now. I merely await word from Tmtoulouse. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 16:25, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

For some reason "Admin" is set as the default user account, but its not me. --Admin 20:10, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

I have got the latest version of mediawiki installed and running with all the initial setup done. 24.36.227.74 20:23, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

I know. Now what is the password for my account? --Admin 20:26, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
Or are you going to rename it? --Admin 20:28, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
I sent all password information to Hans Johnson, if you have his contact info he can give you that password, or you can e-mail me and I can send it wouldn't want to post it here. 24.36.227.74 20:30, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
I emailed you. --Admin 20:36, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
As Admin is now using the first account (which I assume was the one with the magical siteadmin powers), I am at a total loss for what to do. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:20, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
Your the one with the keys to the actual hosting space, time to start learning how to use SSH and FTP and edit all the settings for the wiki. You should be uploading images and what not, and set the logo in the LocalSettings.php file as well as setting user rights such as preventing move, etc. 24.36.227.74 22:27, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

[edit] Postponement

My parents have issued me an ultimatum. I will not be available for however long it takes me obtain employment. I ask, no, beg that you postpone the transition, and continue editing the old scribblewiki site for the time being. I am truly, very sorry for the inconvenience, and I apologize for having to abandon you at such an critical moment.

Sincerely, Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:45, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

RA, you are so transparent. And also, get on with your real fucking life!!! humanbe in 04:11, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
RA = Hans Johnson? Hard to credit. But I read it everywhere. How could I be so wrong? I was 100% certain he was somebody else.--False Flag 16:07, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
I posted this on RW

HANS HAS MADE A MISTAKE. This and this. THE IDENTITY OF HANS JOHNSON IS KNOWN!

<scold = 150>Would you guys give it a rest? We've known this for months. You're all awful at sockspotting. I'm ashamed of your company.</scold>
Auf wiedersehen. User:Jellyfish! 00:44, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

[edit] News from the front

Is that section supposed to be funny? It appears to be one hell of a smear and a hatchet job against our friend Human. Why so bitter?— Unsigned, by: Pinetree / talk / contribs

Mmm. You're right, what a shame.Tee Hee — Unsigned, by: Vicious / talk / contribs
I vote we replace it with something less obnoxious. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 12:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be true though. Is this censorship? Vicious 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, it's not censorship. It's a suggestion that giving prominent space on the main page for Hans Johnson airing his epic vendetta against Human might not be agreeable or of interest to everyone who uses this site, so it might be more appropriate to replace it with some more balanced or entertaining content. And I don't take your point that "it appears to be true". Largely the comments appears to be highly interpretive, and don't all make a lot of sense. E.g. "Human can delete whatever he wants with no input from anyone else" in relation to the Vandals category. Human had discussed this before deleting, Pi had agreed, and RA's only defence of the category prior to deletion was "It doesn't have a point, and it doesn't need one".
My real point is: if we're going to have a News From the Front, it should focus on anything interesting that going on, not just hone in on one user. E.g. I find Pink's & Susan's departures (which I didn't notice til now) more interesting - do we know for a fact that this was connected with Human? I can't find any indication of this: it just seems to be HJ's say-so. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Excerpt from email from SusanG (dated: Sat 10/18/08 12:04 AM):
...
Human's treatment (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Human&page=User%3APink) of "Pink" was too much (insert image of camel with final straw). He apparently has the impression that he is the final arbiter on all things RW. Anyhow, I've left so it won't bother me now).
...
Regards
SusanG
Quoted with permission. Vicious 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say that it would be nice if "News from the Front" wasn't just "What somebody don't like about Human." Every single point refers to user Human - twenty-one negative mentions in all. User Radioactive Afikomen is mentioned seven times in a positive or least more neutral light. Is there a certain amount of axe-grinding or, dare I suggest it, obsession here? Frankly, if this site is really going to take such a one-sided position in a conflict then it loses all credibility as am external commentary on RW's activities.--False Flag 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New leader needed

Hans Johnson, as seen from his rationalwiki activities needs to step down from here. He's sucking the fun out of this place and its unfair to have such a prominent editor over there been such a prominent editor over here. MarcusCicero.

I'll step down the moment others step up. I'm so "prominent" over here because I am generally the only one willing to regularly put some effort into this place. The moment I see another editor willing to put the same or greater amount of effort I have put in to this place, I will be more than happy to pass the mantle of main editor on to said person. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Go fuck yourself and your "prominence" and your "efforts" and your ugly, personal vendetta. The moment I see another editor with a shred of dignity and honesty, I would recommend that they get the keys from Trent and block you and your vile swill and angry vindictiveness from this site. Which, by the way, you have single-handedly ruined. So I repeat and reiterate, go fuck yourself and your blind ego wanking. Human 05:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Human, Human. Deep breaths, look for your calm inner space, these rants must be bad for your blood pressure. RA has (or perhaps had) certainly turned the site into a base from which to launch attacks against you, but you do yourself no favors with counter-attacks of such vitriolic vehemence. Also I see nobody congratulating RA on his subtle manoeuvre so perhaps the point has already been made for you.--False Flag 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Human, I share your grievance... To some extent. RA, you really need to stop taking internet life so seriously. I understand the pursuit of internet power is important to you. You indeed act like a health and safety regulator - promote so many rules that it soon becomes impossible to be even able to hold a bonfire at holloween. Sucking the fun out of everything. Sure, a place without rules becomes chaotic, but that is Rationalwiki's raison d'etre. If you don't understand this then you shouldn't be a member there.
I am willing to take the keys of this place, and place limits on my own authority. I would act as the snark-in-chief, working between the Human/RA controversy. Its ridiculous that the news here has become a soapbox for RA's petty grievances. Both members would be able to continue to do things here but with certain 'snark-editing-rights' to me. RA won't be allowed to go overboard in his pursuit of internet ventation and Human will be able to continue his trademark and loveable snark in a more even setting.
What say ye? The Adjudicator 11:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite honestly, if you are Marcus Cicero, then I believe that there could be no worse person. You have never shown any good judgement in the past and there is no reason to believe that you will in the future. You appear to have an inflated opinion of your own personality and capabilities, which would disqualify you from being in charge of anything at all. Stand Fall on your record.Vicious 12:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Its just a proposal. Judgement is relative though, my friend. The Adjudicator 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As a longtime lurker and someone who fully believes Rationalwiki needs someone to beat it up from time to time, this mysterious IP gives its support to Marcus Cicero.
Mysterious IP, tear down this wall (Of mystery) The Adjudicator 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Marcus Cicero as leader of RWW!! I rather think not. An amusing idea certainly, but I'm afraid that MS's ability to generate friction and dissent is well up there with that of Human and RA.--False Flag 10:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Think for a second. The difference between me and/or Human/RA is that I won't generate friction about where templates should be put... Stupid little things that boil over time. I'm more likely to generate friction by saying, 'Susan has left! Oh no! How long will it be before she's back???? Two days.' Maybe its time someone created a RWWW, since this has been taken over by rationalwikians that don't seem to understand this sites purpose. The Adjudicator 13:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Having RA as chief editor here is a little like having Ed Poor as cheif editor at WIGO over on rationalwiki. Think people. 86.45.217.35 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re having a RWWW, there is one. It's empty. Seems to have only been active for two days (back in April) & had two editors, one of them being Hans Johnson. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RWWW does raise one interesting point: "RationalWikiWiki is an wiki-website dedicated to critcism of RationalWiki." The Adjudicator 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of News

I'm removed News From the Front from the Main Page. Revert if you must, but I really think it's best not to have it, at least in its present form, until things have settled down a bit. I'm not convinced the 'News' is a great idea anyway, & when it's dominated by one editor putting across his view of conflicts he's involved in, it's not pretty. Maybe when more people are involved here it can be reinstated. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually "Hans" has said that he'll keep his hands (ho ho) off it now. It could serve a purpose if used properly.--False Flag 10:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It could. I'd suggest gathering a few non-RA/Human news stories before putting it back, so it looks a bit more neutral. I'm still a little skeptical of how workable it is, as long as RWW is being edited by regular RW editors. (Obviously there are debates going on about whether this should be the case). It tends to mean that news (e.g. of conflicts, discussions, etc.) is likely to be added by people involved in them (not a good thing, as we've seen) or else relies on people lurking & observing these things without getting involved. Anyway, I'm happy to see it given another try, just a bit too lazy to go looking for news myself.  :-) weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually HJ archived the old news page, so as soon as there are a few stories a news page can go back up. One item could maybe be a potted summary of the Spanish Inquisition Incident & subsequent fallout, as long as it portrayed fairly neutrally/snarkily without taking sides, & balanced with some other items. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 16:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement regarding user rights

As of this day, the "siteadmin" usergroup no longer exists. Its only real power (promoting bureaucrats and granting the "access" right) has been given to bureaucrats. Other powers that previously only bureaucrats had have been passed down to janitors. All in all, the hierarchy of user rights has been greatly flattened. You can read the user rights page for the full details. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer make any technical changes to this site unless explicitly asked to by the editors here. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. Fair play HJ. The Adjudicator 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Since the amount of editors will likely tend to be small here, perhaps we should place limits on:

A) Editing articles about ourselves. B) Reporting controversies where we ourselves have been prominent. C) Refrain from attacking one RW user without due cause. The Adjudicator 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that we already have A, B is a good idea. (Although a clean sock would get round them both.) I'm not so sure about C. Anything anybody writes they will think they have "due cause" for writing, so it would seem to be a bit redundant. I wrote most of the original user stubs and none of them were that polite. To a certain extent this site is set up to "attack" - though hopefully not in a destructive way. The spirit of the suggestion is good, but it needs work.--False Flag 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of preventing 'witch-hunts' on single users. By all means be mean to users, but its not nice to be extremely mean to users like Human or Susan, or dedicate undue to time to single users. Not a rule as such, more of a guideline. The Adjudicator 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're going with it, but as it is it could be argued that it would prevent any criticism of any user - or it could be argued that it protects none. I agree the concept is good but rules (or guidelines) which depend on such a level of interpretation are rarely effective. I understand that I'm being a little negative here as I'm not suggesting anything better tho. --False Flag 14:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banner

Does anybody think that an active/inactive banner would be a good idea? Some RW members have sort of faded away and such a thing would be convenient. Only problem is that we could end up in "banner hell" as some articles have two banners and a stalk box already.--False Flag 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: instead of a banner, we use a category. We break the current category:users into two categories: active users and inactive users, with those category pages prominently linking to each other. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice little banner 217.171.129.71 21:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
We could do it with categories, but I was thinking that it needed to be something more immediate. And that is a nice little banner. I was playing around with it on some user pages but some of them do get a bit overbannered. On the other hand it gives the pages a quite distinctive look. Is there any way to control the positioning?--False Flag 22:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Made it possible to "left float" it.Categories are not generally used for this sort of flagging although a category could be added to the banner - in fact I'll do it now so that anyone it's used on goes into Cat: Inactive RW Editors ... done 217.171.129.73 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Just "inactive users" will be fine; no need to specify that it's about RW when the whole site already is. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've created a template:Template:test which can replace Stalkbox (just rename it) to include condition "inact". If inact is set (just put "inact=true" in the template call) then the box will be included, otherwise it'll be absent. (tried to make all the entries conditional but got fed up with the table syntax!) 217.171.129.73 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There's now Template:Test2 which uses "div" instead of table syntax. All entries but "joined" are optional. It includes the "inactive" note. (took me ages as you'll see from Recent Changes) 217.171.129.73 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot - Rusty spotted cat

In the light of the current controversy surrounding this animal I suggest that we make it our mascot. The RWians have sent it to fun and back in an effort to accomodate all opionions. It'a been renamed and threatned with banishment or merger. Will it survive? Should RWW petition for its contunued presence?--False Flag 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If RWW petitions or does anything on RW, then it becomes no longer an observer, but a participant. Fat Tuesday 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think our by-laws prohibit the occasional friendly contact. Besides many RW editors edit here, and both Hans and I edit sometimes on RW.--False Flag 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No-one from here edits on RW as "xxx from RWWW" though. Anyhow a nice CUR would probably be better. Fat Tuesday 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Let us make the "cur" our new mascot. Or not. Human 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
PS, FT, Hi Barbara! (WAG) We all know who each other are, even without similar names. Human 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
If that was intended to indicate that I am Barbara Shack - NO - sorry Human. Fat Tuesday 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to do this, we need to have an article on the subject. Fall down 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is wrong with the article count?

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} displays only 57 pages, while there are more then 100 in the user category alone. Why is this? --Admin 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} will only count a page if it is in a namespace meant for articles (as opposed to, say, the userspace) and contains at least one internal wikilink (see this section of a WikiMedia manual for the same thing in techie-speak). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a way to toggle the latter requirement from "needing at least one internal link" to "needing at least one comma", but I'd have to hunt down the manual for it. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Shall we go on an adding-internal-wikilinks binge to remedy this? : ) Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Special:Deadendpages only displays 31 pages. 57+31=88, and there are more then 100 in the user category alone. Is there a size requirement? --Admin 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Surprisingly, no. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I was afraid of this, but it might be because of the move. --Admin 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you think happened? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I originally made User:Import a bot, maybe MediaWiki does not count some of his imports. But that's very unlikely. I know only as much as you do--Admin 01:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This may be related, but when we moved the total number of edits got zeroed out, as well. I think it only includes edits that show up on Recentchanges, so edits made before the move aren't counted. It's a pity the scribblewiki server crashed—then we could've just added up each site's edit count to get the true number. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Of edits and IPs

Recently, I've been perusing the edit histories to get a true sense of the total number of edits made on RWW. Now, I have no idea how the IP numbering system works, but I can't help but raise my eyebrows when I see this:

  • 87.112.11.204
  • 87.112.24.71
  • 87.112.84.198
  • 87.112.93.66
  • 87.112.225.157
  • 87.113.15.65
  • 87.113.19.38
  • 87.113.103.3
  • 87.113.107.159
  • 87.114.0.141
  • 87.114.26.149
  • 87.114.144.32
  • 87.114.156.252
  • 87.114.159.15
  • 87.115.0.46
  • 87.115.1.241
  • 87.115.11.101
  • 87.115.11.170
  • 87.115.21.230

A handful of these appeared just once in our Barbara Shack and/or Proxima Centauri article's edit histories, so I can't help but wonder if Proxima socks up under IPs far more than we think. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Or am I completely wrong on this and there is a huge difference between 87.112, 87.113, etc? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I know about IP addresses, take a look at http://whois.domaintools.com/87.112.11.204 . 87.112, 113, 114, and 115 are all the same ISP. Or whatever "Uk-force" is. --Admin 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
And, they are apparently all in London. One person at many internet cafes? Or just several Londoners? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Na, PC has a dynamic IP address (has said so a few times at RW). She edit warred relentlessly with me over a joke translation of her name in the RWW article a couple of months or so ago. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RationalWiki moments of 2008

RW are doing a poll of Top Ten Conservapedia Moments of 2008. Would it be a good idea (or at least a fun one) to do a similar poll or list or debate about RationalWiki moments of the year? If it was set up here & then an announcement about it was posted on the Intercom at RW, it might get more people interested in contributing here. Or would that be carelessly blurring the boundaries between the two sites? weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 03:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in your idea. It be fun, and would drive some more editors our way. But we should wait for word from Admin and False Flag before proceeding. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Not that I'm too important, but I like the idea. FernoKlump 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Admin 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, first, it's totally "on mission" for RWW to do it. And second, it's totally "on mission" to fuck with RW ;) I say run with it. But how are you/we going to do the poll? Did Trent port the poll extension over here? Do I need to ask him to? Human 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you will need to. Last we checked, the vote extension was not installed here. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd see if there are enough moments before worrying about a vote. In extremis, you could always put the voting on RationalWiki & copy the results to here. Fat Tuesday 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a few to start (in approximate chronological order), all examples to some extent of Headless Chicken Mode, but I guess that's the most engtertaining sort of "moment" at RW:

  • Kip the Dip Incident
  • Great TK Banning Incident
  • Fuck You Too Incident
  • Great Pissing Contest
  • Fox getting drunk & irate & demanding telephone calls from other RWians (30th July, doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on RWW)
  • Teresita storming out & then socking up as Francine
  • Feud between RA & Human
  • Fall down's essays & vandalism causing extensive debates about freedom of speech & how to deal
  • ConservativeUndergroundResistor fighting virtually everybody else over rusty-spotted cats (& trying to get Weaseloid banned)

I'm sure there are others, but I've only been here a few months myself, & RWW seems a bit patchy in coverage - it looks like there was probably hardly any editing here over the summer. Hence probably a few things not mentioned here (e.g. Fox, as above).

Voting arrows would be neat if it's doable. Otherwise, 'voting' could just be done with comments & signatures, although this would lose any anonymity. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The voting arrows have a major flaw: anyone with access to more than 1 IP can multiple vote (I've done it myself on RW). Why do we need to be anon anyway? Fat Tuesday 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
FT's idea of running the poll at RW is a good one if we can't get it set up here fairly soon; although simple "signed" voting here would work well too. All the events under consideration should have links to articles about them here, of course. Are we gonna add any "positive" or "funny" ones? (The Expelled Leader's Guide project? The Behe interview project? CP: The musical?) Whatever "we" do, it definitely should be spammed all over the RW Intercom to get some traffic and voters. Human 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I don't know anything about any of those. I agree there should be linked articles &/or difflinks for all of them when the list gets put together. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, our purpose is to be critical, so I don't really see the purpose of citing positive moments. Certainly the rare moments of justice on Conservapedia didn't make it into the top ten. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of linking to the appropriate articles here. I assume we use difflinks for the ones we don't have articles for? Some of them we have half-finished articles for (such as the Great Pissing Contest)—would someone finish those please? We also need to clean up our horribly biased coverage of some of them. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Little squabble going on as I write over (of all things) a harmless pun on Furry Fandom. Fat Tuesday 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "RationalWikiWiki is in no way officially endorsed, supported, or, recommended by RationalWiki. "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that RWW exisits on RW's server space? If this is so, does that not count as "support"--and point to a possible bit of tension/ a conflict of interest? TheoryOfPractice 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Trent, by owning the server, is the only one with the power to force anything on us. He offered to house us on the server (it doesn't cost him extra to run multiple websites) and he promised to leave us alone. I, taking into account his exceptional character, chose to trust him (were he the sort of person to abuse his power, would anyone even still be at RationalWiki?) I consider it a deal between gentlemen, rather than a deal between two conflicting institutions. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And, would you have turned down a similar offer from Trent? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I probably would not have turned down such an offer--I don't blame you for taking him up on it, not in the least. That being said--and given that TMT seems to be allowing RWW full editorial independence, this may be a very minor point--I think it's slightly disingenuous for RWW to say it gets no support from RW when the owner of RW gives RWW a free ride on his server space. Perhaps the disclaimer could be slightly rephrased in order to 1. give a little credit where credit is due (a public thank-you where newcomers can easily see it seems only polite) and 2. allow people to understand that the hands-off relationship which you currently enjoy vis-a-vis RW is entirely dependent on the whim of one individual who could change his mind at any time. Just my 2 cents' worth...TheoryOfPractice 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We really should have a thank-you there. I am somewhat less inclined to insert a word of warning, but in the meantime I'll go ahead and add the thank-you note. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't figure out how to word it. Would you please add it for me? I'll unlock the main page to let you do so. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You can edit it now. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your trust in me, thanks very much...--but it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. I'm dead tired and have an early morning. TheoryOfPractice 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, then. Goodnight. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it struck me as funny too. Perhaps "we" should actually have a brief page describing the "details" as far as anyone would care. Human 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In passing: "officially" is a tad ... aah ... pretentious? Nicht wahr? I don't think RW has the capacity to be "official" about anything. Fat Tuesday 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Know that I think about it, yest, it is a bit silly to claim that a mobocracy can "officially" do anything. I'll go ahead and remove that. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 07:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"
Personal tools