Template talk:RationalWiki MainPage/About/Archive1

Subpage
I have no idea why the template is calling this an "archive". Maybe because it is already a subpage? I just used the template to get an auto link to /vandalism, where I just saved some juicy material from last weekend. human be in 19:52, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I already have that at User:Thunderkatz/pwnage ThunderkatzHo! 19:54, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to admit, this is classic pwnage. Follow who is making the edits.  Its really quite humorous. Sadly, it got out of hand. Bohdan
 * Sure was. And, ThKa, hiding it in your private archive is not the RW way!  We archive the really good funny wandalism as a sub page of the target's talk page.  What else are you hiding where no one sees it? human be in 20:40, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd anser that, but I won't. Especially as I see no way to avoid double innuendo.  ThunderkatzHo! 20:44, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
 * p.s. Don't let others know about your secreT Knowledge.  Or I'll kill you once my coup is complete.

By the way, wazzok is starting to be used in my head and may become part of my everyday volacb soon --Signed by  Elassint the Great Hi! 21:14, 28 November 2007 (EST)


 * My everyday volacb isn't quite up to the evenings out @ RW. My special volacb has blue trimmings & small diamanté buckles. Susan  purrrrr ...  21:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)


 * Ooh, that sounds secksy! Will you wear it this weekend for us? human  21:43, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Disclaimer
We have no need for the disclaimer - it is fairly self evident we are not an encyclopedia. AceMcWicked 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC) It has been reverted twice. Anyone differ? AceMcWicked 03:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It says that already in the article RationalWiki, the one that is linked to about ten times on the frontpage, if someone can't work that out form there they are in trouble. 03:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's an interesting idea since so many people think of wikis as encyclopedic. However, I also think it is our angry Amish editor is trying to make a "WP:POINT" because his reading skills failed him and he blames us. And we sure as hell don't need to link to WP on our mainpage to explain what we are doing. No stinkin' disclaimer needed.  03:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is with the Amish today? We have three new article on them already. Oh well, someone with a mop can clean it up later. 03:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do some sweeping. AceMcWicked 04:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the new articles? 05:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy
I actually kind of like ToP's version  00:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"And having fun doing it"
So - what does everyone think of that? 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Tommy's been here a day, so surely altering the main page is within his purview? I thought that part was expressed in one of the RW space articles, though. Oh, and it doesn't follow grammatically, it should just be "Having fun doing it".  And it really shouldn't be there.  19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [[image:Shakinghead.gif]] 10:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice...
...that we're down to two aims rather than three now? Not that I'm disputing the change, I think it works better. But no one seems to have batted an eyelid... and considering the amount of arse-ache a mere colour change brought about, I thought such a sizeable change to the mission statement would have at least raised an eyebrow or something. 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that. Seems more a formatting change than anything else, but I'll pop that page on observe. I know that Research psychologist has been tinkering there, and any actual addition or removal of items really should be discussed on the talk page. -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The missions are listed in various places, such as the RationalWiki page & Community Standards. The wording might differ very slightly but they are always listed as three.  This should match, or else they should all change to two, but only if the community agree on it, not just one editor condensing it on a whim.   19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The mission page copy goes into slightly more detail, it seems. But yes, they should match. 19:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Three is better, because things come in threes. But the second one is highly redundant. 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I always preferred the phrase "full range of crank ideas" & don't know why it was removed, apparently nearly two years, although it stayed in the mission page until now. "Analyzing and refuting crank ideas" on its own sounds a bit blunt.   19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does sound blunt. Hence redundant. I suppose "full range of crank ideas" needs to be first. And then we go on to the specifics, anti-science, fundamentalism etc. 19:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the order they're in is the right one. The way I interpret it is - 1. pseudoscience - 2. all other crank ideas which technically might not be classed as pseudoscience (hence why "full range" or a similar phrase is good) - 3. religion & politics, & how these relate to pseudoscience, crank ideas, etc.   19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. What if #2 was "Documenting and analysing a wider range of crank ideas and beliefs" - that gives it a wide scope, but takes it out of the "science" area. 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Weaseloid on the rolling mellifluous tones of "the full range of crank ideas". It sounds really nice as a phrase. So I've restored it to the template. Still in place #2, shuffle it elsewhere if you like - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too hot on the dual use of "analysing and refuting", as that adds the redundancy that is part of the original problem. Hence adding the part about "documenting" - because in some cases, we are the sole (coherent) documenters. 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to make further changes, we need to move this discussion out into the forum or Saloon Bar or somewhere more noticeable. The missions are a pretty big deal.   21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this still counts as wording. It's not major. 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a pointer on the Saloon Bar - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just return it to its condition prior to the race/eugenics fan's wandalism? I think he edited it innocuously to see if anyone would notice, then edited it maliciously. The "innocuous" edit was reducing it to two lines. 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, but then brought up the issue of "full range of crank ideas" vs "crank ideas", which also seemed to have been changed summarily by one user, albeit quite a long time ago.  17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Human- You're seriously nuts. You actually think that I reduced the mission statement to 2 points because I could better fit in the other points later?! I wasn't even aware of the true purpose of this wiki back then. You're thinking like the conspiracy theorists that you supposedly seek to discredit. Plus, an ad hominem argument is not a valid reason for making a revert. Research psychologist (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Page lock
I hate having to lock out pages, but this page has been a target for some vandal for weeks now, so I locked IP editors from editing it for the next 3 weeks. If anybody objects, feel free to raise those objections here. 05:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, in the last three weeks I see only 4 vandalism edits all in the last 10 days and not lasting more than 5 minutes in total. Locking it seems unnecessary. 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly, my hope is that, as it seems like the same moron, they'd get bored and go away. But I have absolutely no objections to unlocking it if people think I am being excessive. 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just block him once a day, he can't keep it forever. 06:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Das ist stimmt. 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this template shouldn't stay locked. Changes to the missions shouldn't be made without discussion anyway.   06:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fundamental site philosophy. Then again, I locked my sig page how many years ago?  09:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we seem to have made exceptions to some other fundamental site philosophies. Personally I have less against locking the main page layout (templates can still be dited) than other stuff. 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

4th mission statement
See Forum:Add to our remit? Should this new proposal be added or more discussion needed? 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that more discussion is needed. This is very major change. Hopefully it won't be very long before there is a community consensus. -- 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let the chatter continue for at least an other week or two. 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * YOU ADDED IT WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!! UNILATERAL ACTION! HERESY!!!! YOU BROKE MY WIKI!!!!!!!!!!11 WHAAA!! WHAAAA!!! WHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it because you told me too... hehe... also, I did do a sitewide intercom invitation to the forum, and there have been nothing but positive comments that I recall.  00:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do any of these articles fulfill the mission?
Alaska, Alcohol, Arizona, Bonobo, Boston marriage, British Columbia, Connecticut, Culture, Cunt, Finland, Hawaii, Maine, Mali, Manitoba, Michigan, Neutron, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Proton, Quark, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Scat, Wine, and Yoni.Civic Cat (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Why? 20:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Without checking their content I'd say about half. 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox & Grapes.jpg cat is feeling ill used because his articles on fluther(?) and some other site were kicked for being non-mission but the above haven't been.
 * Thing is, puss, most of the above either are mission related or have become part of the furniture. Why we have so many states etc. of the US/Canada is a mystery, but there you go! 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Yeah, unlike Answerbag and Fluther, the content of the boneheadeness of Demand Media, and the corporate smoke they blew; and that the former was, and the latter is, an alt to right-wing-troll-infested Yahoo Answers couldn't possibly be of any interest to any RW'ian. And yes, it could be RW-insider-verses-newbie thing--grandfathered articles being part of the furniture. Guess I'll check out when these articles were created, or maybe not. I'm not ill, just a little ticked--after all, there are a few other thousand wikis I could try. It's just the apparent hypocrisy. Btw, not only is the Uncyclopedia article on Ontario better than the one in RW, but so is the CP one. I'm thinking of improving it, but I'm concerned I might violate some taboo or policy here--do some landmine inspecting first I suppose. I'll grant that one nice thing about this place is that one can still access huffed articles, sort of. One used to be able to do that on Answerbag, but I guess most folks won't know that from here now, huh?Civic Cat (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've got problems with individual articles, discuss them individually on the relevant talk pages, not as a block list somewhere else. & If you've still got issues about articles that were deleted, same goes: discuss it on their talk pages.  Please don't confuse the two issues: your articles being deleted doesn't automatically justify deleting others.   22:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are really old and really crap articles we keep around because deleting them would cause a drama fest, and no-one can be bothered to improve them. Or worse, people think they're funny, and attempts to make them more serious (or just less Uncyclopedia-reject crap) are met with resistance. Also this page isn't really ideal for discussing such stuff, since it will get buried in Recent Changes and people won't notice it. I recommend the Saloon bar or better yet, the Forum. -- Nx  / talk 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid, please tell me, how does one, assuming one can, go on the talk page of a huffed article? "your articles being deleted doesn't automatically justify deleting others." I'm not proposing their deletion, as much as asking why mine were, when theirs stay? Nx, given my track record in the SB, I would be surprised before the bouncer soon taps me on the shoulder.  As for our established RW'ans causing a drama-fest by deleting off-mission articles on one hand, or tolerating their presence in hopes that they improve, let’s check a bit into the first 4 articles I mentioned. Human and SusanG didn't seem to have a problem with Alaska as being off mission as they both edited the article. Weaseloid joined them in the one on alcohol. As for Arizona, Human started it with this worthy stub, while a Bob M starts the bonobo article with this stub about the sexy apes. I wouldn't be too surprised if the other articles I mentioned were similar in these respects.  Admit it. The only difference between my articles and theirs was that the latter were created by those who had tenure; aand they'll be damned before they let some snouty-nosed Civic Cat  punk who wasn't there man in the CP-RW1.0 wars, pretend to be their equal. I suppose I'll have to go through some probationary period of improving, to the best of my abilities, the masterpieces of my RW elders--if such a thing was possible--until, I too, can create off mission articles with impunity. Either that, of find a more accommodating wiki.Civic Cat (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By clicking here
 * I don't think we've ever booted anyone for being a pain in the arse.
 * True
 * Try it.
 * 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * (EC) The difference is actually that these articles were created back in 2007/2008 when things were different. You are welcome to improve articles such as Ontario, I would appreciate it in fact, but remember that we're not trying to be Wikipedia, so it's best to keep it short and simple. As for your deleted articles, they did sound too much like a fanboy rant, maybe copy them to your userspace so you can work on them some more before unleashing them on us? -- Nx  / talk 18:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons why some articles have been deleted and others haven't is that they were proposed for deletion, discussed on the talk page & then deleted, while this hasn't happened to everything. This is how mobocracy works.  The missions are guidelines we work in, but ultimately whether something gets deleted or not comes down to whether the community want to keep it or bin it.  If you want to discuss the merits of an article, do it at the talk page but please stop making it so personal.  18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SusanG. Keep the dialogue going.
 * Gee, that's the nicest thing you said about me so far. :-D
 * It's now on record. ("Your Honour, one of the elder RW'ians said it, so it must be okay.")
 * May be I will. Nyeah Nyeah! ( :-D )  Nx. More good idesa. :-)   Weaseloid, dude, your talking to a guy who's been suspended on Yahoo! Answers several times for picking fights with right wing trolls. This is almost humourous for me. Just like the pompous arrogant milords of old had a few good things about them, so even more does RW. This is a great site, but I still feel free to refer to inconsistencies. After all, If you listen to fools, the Mob rules.Civic Cat (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, CC, see category:talk pages for deleted articles 19:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed. Thanks Human.  :-) and now I'll be gone for the weekend. Among the to-do-list is Toronto municipal election, 2010. Bye for now.Civic Cat (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)