User talk:Shot info

Welcome to the Dollhouse, and I think you meant to edit my talk page, not user page. I'll move your comment to where it belongs. Thanks! 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh!. What a fundatmental wikifauxpas!!! :-)  Shot info (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No big deal at all, I copied it over to my talk page to save it. 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Running around naming the people you think are behind anonymous accounts, unless they have clearly identified themselves, is highly frowned upon here. 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Here at RationalWiki, we respect privacy the way it was meant to be respected: by respecting it.  Outing personal information without permission to do so is ABSOLUTELY NOT something to be admired.The Goonie 1 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Would it be impudent to ask then that editors at RationalWiki don't encourage websites that don't respect privacy?  Shot info (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Websites such as?The Goonie 1 (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikisynergy - incidently can we discuss over at Human's talkpage? Shot info (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that RationalWiki did little more than chastise Wikisynergy, but, sure, we can continue at Human's page.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiSynergy
The arguments about WikiSynergy are too spread out and longer than I feel like doing a detailed reading of. Forgive me if I screw up anything that has all ready been hashed out. I disagree with the "eye for an eye" approach to dealing with "outing" on wikisynergy. We don't want to be used for a specific vendetta against one person by "outing" them for "outing" someone else. However, I think the topic that WikiSynergy is focusing on specific WP editors, and that there is a history of conflict there is interesting enough to cover in our article on them. I am not as familiar with the story and potential link history as you are. Could we maybe write that story in the article and focus less on trying to out their admin? tmtoulouse 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi tmtoulouse, not a problem. FWIW how the article stands at the moment is not to bad (IMO).  Will give it a bit of thought and drop some info into it.  Probably will run the risk of breaking up the flow of the current article as it stands however.  Shot info (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Resurrection
It seems that it's all fine and dandy in this part of the world! Shot info (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)