User talk:Arthropleura
(→Just being honest) |
m (→Just being honest) |
||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
:That sucks, man. I got the side of the plant with all the aphids on it. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 18:43, 17 December 2008 (EST) | :That sucks, man. I got the side of the plant with all the aphids on it. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 18:43, 17 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| − | ::Better than having | + | ::Better than having triffids. - [[User:3.14159|<font color="black">'''User'''</font>]] {{User:3.14159/Sig/randpi}} 19:43, 17 December 2008 (EST) |
Revision as of 00:44, 18 December 2008
Hi ConservapediaUndergroundResistorActually I'm not. I made this my user name because I resist Conservapedia. They've blocked me three times (and probably counting) and deleted my accounts as Bill111, Bill1111, and RationalWikiLover. Yes, I know. What I did as Bill111 was immature, but I've tried to be less youthful in my editing. -ConservapediaUndergroundResistor
Contents |
Rusty Spotted Cat
Just curious, but what's the reasoning for making that article? As it stands, it probably doesn't fit the "mission" here, especially since it's already done pretty well at Wikipedia. Do you have something new involving lulz and/or refutation of something, or is this just duplicating effort? --Kels 11:38, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Still, we should expand so we cover many more topics. Also, the study of biology, and especially zoology, is atrophy to the anti-science movement. Anyway, some lulz could certainly fit into it.--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 12:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, if you've got some plans then no problem. Be worth seeing what you come up with. I just wanted to make sure. --Kels 12:23, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Hi again. It's great to see you getting involved - but we don't really need an article on every possible animal. We are not trying to compete with Wikipedia. An article on for, example Horse is not a bad idea as it is a good example of a fossil lineage. But if we have an article on every single animal then we are going to make an almost identical pro-evolution, anit-creationist argument on each of their pages. While we certainly could do this it might make for a level of repetition. I don't know if you have considered our mission statements here but they might help.--Bobbing up 14:22, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- I agree we need to expand a bit. A zoology category will be great if you can find good examples that aren't too obscure and provide a good tie-in with the mission statement. So long as they're not completely ripped from WP that's fine. I've been thinking of going back over and refining basic chemistry again myself, I'm sure people won't mind us expanding the science sections. ArmondikoVmoral 14:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Was it you I was talking to about creating a science namespace Armondikov?--Bobbing up 14:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- You know, I'm good with a science namespace, and if we've got a hobbyist who wants to putter around with it so much the better. I'd support it, so long as there's SPOV and some tie-in to anti-science. --Kels 15:03, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- How can we refute the anti-science and crank ideas if we flatly refuse to educate people? To refute anti-science, you need to teach about science. My article falls into that cat. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 16:21, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- On subjects of fact, we can just point to WP, as you have said, they do do the job rather more intensely than we ever could. Ok, there might be one or two subjects on which we could reach the same depth of cover as WP, but we can't hope to compete with the whole breadth and depth that they do. I think we're better sticking to our mission and dealing only with the refutation of ... etc. Frohlich 16:31, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- I'm not entirely convinced that your Rusty spotted cat article does a vast amount to educate the scientifically illiterate about the dangers of pseudoscience. It's also a slightly obscure place to start your crusade against anti science. I note that one of your earlier edits contained the line: The rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus) is the smallest of the cat species. As such, it is much more easily domesticated than a lion. While this is probably true, it would seem to do little in respect of, for instance, explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.--Bobbing up 16:35, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Ah, but I made it better and included lulz. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 16:55, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- For that matter, neither does, say, the fun star wars article --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 16:57, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- (hint) Does "Fun" mean anything to you? Toast 12:46, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- I'm not entirely convinced that your Rusty spotted cat article does a vast amount to educate the scientifically illiterate about the dangers of pseudoscience. It's also a slightly obscure place to start your crusade against anti science. I note that one of your earlier edits contained the line: The rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus) is the smallest of the cat species. As such, it is much more easily domesticated than a lion. While this is probably true, it would seem to do little in respect of, for instance, explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.--Bobbing up 16:35, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- On subjects of fact, we can just point to WP, as you have said, they do do the job rather more intensely than we ever could. Ok, there might be one or two subjects on which we could reach the same depth of cover as WP, but we can't hope to compete with the whole breadth and depth that they do. I think we're better sticking to our mission and dealing only with the refutation of ... etc. Frohlich 16:31, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- How can we refute the anti-science and crank ideas if we flatly refuse to educate people? To refute anti-science, you need to teach about science. My article falls into that cat. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 16:21, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- You know, I'm good with a science namespace, and if we've got a hobbyist who wants to putter around with it so much the better. I'd support it, so long as there's SPOV and some tie-in to anti-science. --Kels 15:03, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Was it you I was talking to about creating a science namespace Armondikov?--Bobbing up 14:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- I agree we need to expand a bit. A zoology category will be great if you can find good examples that aren't too obscure and provide a good tie-in with the mission statement. So long as they're not completely ripped from WP that's fine. I've been thinking of going back over and refining basic chemistry again myself, I'm sure people won't mind us expanding the science sections. ArmondikoVmoral 14:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Hi again. It's great to see you getting involved - but we don't really need an article on every possible animal. We are not trying to compete with Wikipedia. An article on for, example Horse is not a bad idea as it is a good example of a fossil lineage. But if we have an article on every single animal then we are going to make an almost identical pro-evolution, anit-creationist argument on each of their pages. While we certainly could do this it might make for a level of repetition. I don't know if you have considered our mission statements here but they might help.--Bobbing up 14:22, 15 December 2008 (EST)
(unindent) Bob: I assume it was me, sometime, somewhere. It's certainly an idea I could get behind. While it's true that there is no way we can or would even want to compete with WP on depth and breath, you have to remember that Wikipedia is Wikipedia. A lot of its science articles suffer badly from it's writing style. On RW, we're safe to drift into informality, slightly bizarre explanations and tying things together in ways that WP just can't because of what it is. While it's data is very extensive (it's chemical data is about as reliable as the Sigma-Alrich catalogue) its ability to explain things concisely and clearly sometimes suffers when it's presented to a non-expert audience. ArmondikoVmoral 12:24, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- Well, I'm in favour. So how do we go about properly bringing this 'fore the mob? --Kels 12:49, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- You find the big badass power-mad ones that make lots of edits, make sure they're out of town and unilaterally go ahead without any approval :P ArmondikoVmoral 08:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)
We could
... just copy WP:
The Rusty-spotted Cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus) is a very small wild cat of southern India and Sri Lanka. It is 35-48 cm (14-17 in) in length, plus 15-25 cm (6-10 in) tail, weighing in at only approximately 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs). Since adult females can weigh as little as 1 kg (2.2 lbs) or less, this species rivals (and may exceed) the Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes) as the world's smallest wild cat. The color of the fur is grey, with rusty spots all over the back and the flanks, while the underbelly is white with large dark spots. The tail, thick and about half the length of the body, is darker in color than the body and the spots are less distinct. All in all this cat is quite similar to the related Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis).
Habitat and behaviour
The Indian populations of the Rusty-spotted Cat mainly lives in tropical dry forests and dry grasslands, but in Sri Lanka rainforests are the preferred habitat. The reason for this difference may be the competition with the Leopard Cat, which occupies the rainforests of the mainland, but does not live in Sri Lanka.
This cat is nocturnal and partly arboreal, and feeds on rodents, birds and lizards. Its nature is described as friendly and playful, making it conducive for domestication as pets. It is also hunted for food in some areas by local human populations.
Conservation
The Rusty-spotted Cat faces a high risk of extinction in the wild and is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. More specifically, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) lists the Indian population in Appendix I (threatened with extinction where trade in the specimens is only allowed in exceptional circumstances) and the other populations in Appendix II (not necessarily threatened with extinction, but where trade in the furs is strictly controlled).
Subspecies
There are two subspecies:
- Prionailurus rubiginosus rubiginosus, India
- Prionailurus rubiginosus phillipsi, Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, the Rusty-spotted Cat is known as Handun Diviya or Kola Diviya.[1] The terms 'Handun Diviya' and 'Kola Diviya' are also used by the local community to refer to the Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), another little-known small cat in suburban habitats of Sri Lanka. Both animals are nocturnal and elusive and therefore distinct identity as to which one is referred as 'Handun Diviya' is arguable.[2]
External links
References
Frohlich 16:44, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Grandiose plans
Wikipedia isn't "better" because they "try harder" - they are bigger because their editor base is a few orders of magnitude bigger. We are more specialized in our focus and intent. I would suggest that if you want to outdo Linnaeus here that you start with a couple of highly interesting critters relative to our mission statement (Darwin's finches?), in order to avoid having to defend random articles that won't really fit in unless there are thousands of them. ħuman
20:18, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- There for my proposal to take a bunch of cat articles and make on big cat article. And the cheetah is a great example of evolution. The cat page would have a detailed description of every species. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 20:24, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Maybe start with just the major divisions before getting down to the every species level, since there are an awful lot of them. --Kels 20:29, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Done deal. I'll get to work. The prototype will be ready by tommorrow. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 20:31, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Any good ideas on how to differentiate it from the beloved cat article? Call it "cats in the wild"? "wild cats"? (Those are both really bad ideas). "Cat (undomesticated)"? Way too clumsy. Is there a good family name or some such they all fall in? ħuman
20:43, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Oh, here's an idea - build the prototype in a sandbox and that will give us time to figure it out? (Do you know how to make a sandbox in your user space?) ħuman
20:44, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Oh, here's an idea - build the prototype in a sandbox and that will give us time to figure it out? (Do you know how to make a sandbox in your user space?) ħuman
- Any good ideas on how to differentiate it from the beloved cat article? Call it "cats in the wild"? "wild cats"? (Those are both really bad ideas). "Cat (undomesticated)"? Way too clumsy. Is there a good family name or some such they all fall in? ħuman
- Done deal. I'll get to work. The prototype will be ready by tommorrow. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 20:31, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Maybe start with just the major divisions before getting down to the every species level, since there are an awful lot of them. --Kels 20:29, 15 December 2008 (EST)
DONT ...
... fuck about with long established Lulz, please. Frohlich 11:42, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Weasaloid/Chill
Hey, take a deep breath, have a beer. Step away from the keyboard. Settle in to the "feel" of the place. "Pull up a goat" (as they say for some reason). Weasaloid doesn't seem to me to be misbehaving. In fact people here tend to be very polite and considerate (often whilst being foul-mouthed, contrarian and exhibiting a weird sense of humour).--Toffeeman 16:54, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, that's not really how we do things here (the blocking) especially for a mere content dispute. Pinto's5150 Talk 18:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Ban the ill-tempered little mustelid (Weaseloid)
Hehe, haha, ho ho, hahahahahah "Please block User:Weaseloid. This ... is not appriciated. Already ... this site gain a reputation as worse than Conservapedia." Wow. Luser.
You're calling for the block of a user who disagrees with you about article content or placement? After being on the site for less than a week? Quelle merde! Quelle merde, indeed (sorry for my English). You no listen. You no read. You tell us what to do. You tell us to remake our mission. Let me say, since I might be the only one to dare to be so rude: Go fuck yourself, troll. ħuman
22:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- well, I was about to vandal bin him hours (days?) ago, then I remembered that some on the site have more respect & tolerance than I for freedom of speech, so I didn't. Toast 23:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Yeah it is not personal about you it says that about me when I go on his user page we use it all the time. - User
01:05, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- "Anonymous User" (if that is your real name), you have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and like most liberals you act like you're smarter than every one else and hope that people will agree with you because you seem smart and "reasonable", so it's painfully obvious that you're against Conservapedia. You also clearly deny that capitalizing Hell stops Evolution Syndrome. In sum, an intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight jacket of consistency. Next you can predictably insist on your liberal last wordism.--Aschlafly 22:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the assquote thing should be kept as far away from newer members as possible. It's almost as bad as the template that says "You have no new messages" at the top of talk/user pages for confusing the poor blighters. ArmondikoVmoral 08:05, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- Okay, maybe I overeacted. But it is rude. And is that really crazy Andy posting there? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 10:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, the assquote thing should be kept as far away from newer members as possible. It's almost as bad as the template that says "You have no new messages" at the top of talk/user pages for confusing the poor blighters. ArmondikoVmoral 08:05, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Just being honest
Seriously you are currently in the top 10 drama queens we have had here, pushing for the top 5. You joined the 9th of December, on my side of the plant that is one day over a week ago. You are already making demands to block long term editors and you will stop contributing if you don't get your way over a stupid at picture. Seriously my advise to you is settle in and learn the feel of the land first. This is like no other wiki you have been to before, there are little things on here that exist purely at RationalWiki which take some getting use to. So my advice is contribute to only preexisting pages until you see what topics we cover and in what way. When you have got the hang of it then start making larger contributions and you will be a sysop in no time. - User
18:40, 17 December 2008 (EST)