Talk:Main Page

From RationalWikiWiki

Talkpage archives

Wikipedia has "Simple English Wikipedia"

Is there any chance RWW will ever create a "Simple Drama RationalWikiWiki", for those who find digging up even the simplest dirt headache-inducing? 76.105.223.232 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Better get cracking on making the shift to CC-BY-SA, let Nx or I know when you are ready and one of us can set the LocalSettings.php file to point to CC-BY-SA, the other notices will need to be edited by hand. Check rw:RationalWiki:Transitioning to CC-BY-SA for pointers. 216.221.87.112 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If I have to do this I am going to be pissed. Someone take charge damn it. 216.221.87.112 18:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Who ferinstance? PH seems to have vanished. 94.197.138.241 02:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Screw it then let the place rot. 216.221.87.112 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple enough to do it by fiat, I suspect. Load "all images". Change all to CC-BY-SA. Change "site" copyright warnings. Done. Are there even many images here? human^{be in} 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, "gallery of new files" fits on one lousy page. human^{be in} 04:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, pisswad, there are now no gfdl images on this site. Heck, there are barely any images on this site! I PD'd, CC-BY-SAd, or deleted everything in sight. Nao pleez to change site copyright info from GFDL to Cubic Centimeters BY Sacred Arcs, mkay? human^{be in} 05:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that that was Trent who you called a "pisswad". Theemperor 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was. :P human^{be in} 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pisswad aside, I changed whatever that hell that was on the copyrights page to standard CC-BY-SA text and changed the settings of the wiki to reflect the new copyright status. In no way shape or form is this action to be construed that I have any official involvement with this wiki or sanction any of its content, etc. Tmtoulouse 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on behalf of whoever is in charge around here. I just wanted to help clean up your hard drive ;) human^{be in} 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone had to clear up both sites. Armondikov 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Um... Sorry... I was on holiday... 11:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I hasten to point out that my control of the site extends merely to bureaucracy; I was never given server access.

20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editing

Why can't IPs edit? -- Nx / talk 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not true. 99.57.160.198 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The HCM involving MC

What should we call it, and what level of HCM did it reach? I, personally, think it made it as far as HCM2, maybe even HCM 3, but I want feedback. MNpunkboy 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

HI Goonie! As my last post indicated, I want to adopt a diplomatic approach. I laughed when you reverted my last edits, despite me being the epitome of good behaviour. Will you please try and engage in a dialogue? Its much more fruitful than this ego enhancing back and forth.

While itgoes against my better judgement, I see no harm allowing you to try said approach. But I'm warning you: I will not tolerate anymore of your usual bullshit. MNpunkboy 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A gentleman! My my, I see you've developed a sense of decency, at last! I wonder how long you'll maintain this hard guy image on the interweb? Its very droll, if you are (As I suspect) being ironic. But anyway, back to the point at hand; I have a few 'demands', not entirely unreasonable. All I want is for my accounts to be unblocked. The sole and single reason for this demand is that Hans Johnson knowlingly broke the site rules when he decided to block me for trollery; and to add insult to injury, linked to a page where he himself broke the site rules, if indeed 'trolling' is against the rules of this site. My trolling may be colourful at times, even downright offensive, but I do take pride in my work. I will not allow my good name to be tarnished with the insult of 'vandal'. I will not allow you to keep me banned from this site. I promise you that if I am unbanned then I WILL PROMISE TO STAY AWAY AND NEVER POST ON THIS SITE EVER AGAIN. The only reason I am still here is because you have given me a valuable grievance, and because I am bored. Take that grievance away and I will have no reason to stay here. Hans should learn that I am possibly the most dedicated troll on the internet, I will keep my presence here for as long as is necessary. On the flip side, I will also lose interest in RW; you should've noticed that all I've resorted to doing there is trolling anywhere RA makes a tit of himself. If he removes the grievance he gave to me here, I will lose interest in him there. This really is win win for you; unblock me, and I lose interest both here and on RW. Hence I'll be out of your hair for ever.

Give it a trial run. Unblock my accounts and if I should return and post under any of them accounts then feel free to indefinately block me. I PROMISE I WILL NOT GO BACK ON MY WORD. You can quote this message if you like.

I'll let ye mull over this message over christmas. THough please have the balls to either allow this to remain or respond - don't behave like an authoritarian dullard please. While that behaviour is deliciously droll, I do worry over the slim possibility that you are actually behaving like an internet tough guy on purpose, and are unaware how ridiculous that makes you look if the whole act is genuine. 86.45.218.195 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles

I'm just off out now, but here's a suggestion: how about we work on a few more articles to bring them up to featured status. I'm bored with constantly having the same people who left years ago. Rrose Selavy 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. MNpunkboy 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure that it wasn't MarcusCicero. He would be so proud. --Earthland 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll feature his arse on my size ten work boots if that helps. Rrose Selavy 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK there's some weird way that articles transclude to the main page, but i can't work out what's happening. in the meantime, I nominate the following for featured status (please support/oppose with reasons):

Anti-religion bias

Arthropleura

RationalWiki's Community Standards

Social dynamics

TheoryOfPractice

What is this website's purpose?

(MC)

I use this site to refer to Historical RW stuff that's hard to find there. For me it's a history of RW rather than an attack site. Others may have their own opinion. Rrose Selavy 10:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we are both correct. The point of this site, according to the main page, is to "Identify groupthink, indentify power abuse, and observe the evolution of RationalWiki." Therefore, allowing the critics to come here and critique RationalWiki is part of our job, so long as it fits into identifying groupthink and/or power abuse. Slime attacks, however, do not fit to within that. As far as the history of the site goes, that fits well under "observing the evolution of RationalWiki." So, Rrose, we both appear to be right. MNpunkboy 08:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that RWW has no inherent right to reside on the RW server. It is offered as a courtesy, and I have never exerted or demanded editorial control in return for it. However, this is were to turn into a personal attack site against individuals, in a mean spirited way, RWW would have to find another home. Criticism is fine, and won't be met with me pulling the plug, but if MC comes here and is allowed to start calling people names on their articles I will issue an eviction notice. Tmtoulouse 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Trent is right. He is under no obligation to host it, and I certainly don't think he should if it turns vile. If RWW wants to be a meta-site that essentially records and keeps track of the fast-paced activity of the main site, then I'd certainly welcome it as something incredibly useful. As for criticism, I'd also welcome it - but then again I'm someone who's happy to learn and change, not everyone will be appreciative, especially if it's just personal attacks. Armondikov 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I think I said above, this site's goal is to keep a historical record of RationalWiki while, at the same time, critique RationalWiki in a constructive manner. Using it as a slime attack site is, however, not within its mission. MNpunkboy 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Much as I agree with the above there is a side aspect. By giving the likes of Marcus, CUR and Fall Down some play space it has kept them away from RW which is a "good thing". I know this is a by product and neither is nor should be the primary purpose of this site but it is an aspect. InnocentBystander 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with you there, innocentbystander. I think my original point was that I'd much rather they troll RationalWiki from this site than be over at RationalWiki trying to cause HCM all over the place. At least here, they can largely be ignored, and aren't really disrupting people who are actually trying to work on something important. I do not think MarcusCicero should have free reign over here, but when he is here, at least, he is much easier to ignore and/or get rid of. MNpunkboy 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised

I've been rather out of the loop for a while now and I just thought I'd have a look at the old place. I'm pleasantly surprised. There is actual life in the site. If I had been keeping up with RW I would start to contribute again. Alas...--False Flag 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What's more surprising is that it's all because a certain somebody showed up, and everyone kept their cool and decided to do other things that didn't involve said person. Make sense? MNpunkboy 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)