User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki G

=Gang of Four= This is a little strong. Might we tone it down slightly? 04:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * why? it's accurate.
 * the purpose of Rationalwikiwiki is to be antagonistic, not give token criticism to rwians then reassure them they're doing a great job. like it or not, there are real problem with the rw, and this wiki's purpose it to draw attention to and criticize them.  --Test fail 05:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a bit extreme so I've created Nag of Four for a bit of balance.--False Flag 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I right that all of these are English? Is this significant?--False Flag 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pink/Francine tag team is tempting me to join my (ex) countryfolk and request membership, totally screwing up the meme. Whoever heard of a "Gang of Five"??? They're all British because, in general, Europe is 100 years ahead of the US, in issues of this sort.  They got sick of fighting wars over religion, so they got over it.  The US, on the other hand... Human 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

English
Am I allowed edit this? I'd just like to point out that I'm Welsh .... not English. so the line should read - "They are all believed to be British". Thank you.--Bob M 22:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably just the American misconception that "British=English".  Phantom Hoover  22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination section
I propose the following course of action: — ListenerX 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Swap out SusanG for Toast, who is under heavy suspicion of being her sock.
 * 2) Swap out Bob M, who is definitely on the moderate end on this subject, for TheoryOfPractice, who, er, is not.
 * I suspect that you do not know all of the history of Bob M's posts - and for that matter his occasional history of conflict with TOP over this very subject. On the other hand TOP is British, so that would be in keeping.--False Flag 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TOP is Canadian. 217.171.129.nn 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Bob M was immoderate on this subject before I joined the Wiki, no, I do not know about it; he has always been very reasonable with me. I do know that TOP has become an antitheist lately and exhibited his characteristic short fuse in that area. — ListenerX 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TOP has a short fuse? he looks patient to me --Test fail 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that was a joke... ListenerX 03:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

nope --Test fail 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * His own article here has a few examples. I was myself a close observer to the controversy over one of his long blocks of Fall down, right after I was sysoped. — ListenerX 04:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

i guess i have a higher tolerance. after watching susanG and RA for a year, TOP's dramatics are minor-league --Test fail 05:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If anybody is interested in TOP and I presenting our points of view some time ago, a good place might be the two essays: Why religion is bullshit which I originally co-wrote but eventually took my name off, and TOP's counter-essay A Rational Approach to Dealing with Religion and Society. As usual, the talk pages are probably more informative than the essays. (Mmmmm, now I look at it again, interesting capitalisation in that title.) --Bob M 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My inclination would be to leave TOP as a wannabe in case he has another change of heart.--False Flag 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nag of Four
Since you're updating these, the current "Nag of Four" consists of three currently absent members, plus RA.  w easeLICIOuS B ite M e 11:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we need to do that. It's on the article page and the talk page.  Where I see you are already active.--False Flag 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of date
SusanG is supposedly retired, Bob might be a pretty strong atheist by any measure but isn't as vehemently anti-religion as this suggests and I can't recall Jeeves or Ghengis sticking in their oar in a particularly "gang" like way. Armondikov 20:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relic from the "Golden Age" I guess. Keep for historical reference maybe? The Nag is down to only 3 anyways. Ty 20:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a little soon, but....
I think we should update this article to replace SusanG at some point in the near future. Conficker 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Gang is now effectively Bob. Ty 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gengis is still a bit active. But, yeah, this and the Nag of Four are, pretty much, obsolete as far as updating articles goes. Sure, we could replace the less actives with other, more active anti-theists. But it's sorta become a hassle, to be sure. Conficker 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a debate about anti-theism a while back, here. Ty 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd nominate Tetronian. Ty 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd let the pages die. The antitheists won.  The Gang of Four is now effectively the entire site, with occassional dissenters regarding how hard a line to take.  The Nag of Four was never anything more than a joke, which is now out of date. Slap a template or such declaring the page "of historical interest only" and call it a day.   23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with RA here. It's soooo anti-religion over there that I, myself, don't even get into debates about religion because I'd rather not create some sort of HCM or flame war over my religious beliefs. Thus, let it become a monument to the evolution of anti-theism at RW. Punky McPunkersen 23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is all around more constructive to remove fallacious arguments against religion from mainspace than to pepper talk-space with broadsides of sound and fury that boil down to, "Not enough people here agree with me!" 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So I'm the gang of one? :-) Or perhaps the gang of many? But, hey, Jeeves and Genghis are still about from time to time.--Bob M 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can either vote/haggle/whatever for a fourth member or we can do what some sports teams do - retire the number. After all, who could fill her shoes? Rrose Selavy 15:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say retire it. Ty 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

All in the4 past tense now. problem solved. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor
 * I see. Thank you :) Ty 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't some of this commentary be in the article? Talking about them all in the past makes it sound as if they have all left. Or something.--False Flag 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to incorporate it myself.--False Flag 21:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * EC I kinda disagree. If I write "George W. Bush did X" or even "In early 2010 Obama did Y," that doesn't imply that those people are gone--just that the events that I'm writing about have passed. This is about a particular part of RW that happened in the past. Some of the players are gone, some are around doing different things. Keeping stuff in the present tense is awkward, and makes articles look like an out-of-date play-by-play instead of a historical analysis. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 21:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal as I think fixing the intro was more important and I think referring to active users in the past is a bit odd - unless we want to mean they no longer act that way. But to be consistent more tense work is needed at Nag of Four in that case.--False Flag 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

=Glass ceiling= My memory may fail me here, but I'm pretty sure that neither SusanG, Interpreted or Genghis Khant were RW1.0ians. So while it's entirely possible that there's some kind of old people/new people divide at work somewhere, I don't really think it's in this particular place. --AKjeldsen 15:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)
 * This article isn't one of mine, but I'm not sure what point you're making. None of these three people is a Bureaucrat and they don't figure in any cabal listings. So what is the significance of their not being in RW1? Or do we need to update the "suspected cabal" list?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:50, 4 March 2008 (EST)
 * Actually at least Pinto and Kels seem to be exceptions though. So maybe this needs a bit of a rewrite.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:59, 4 March 2008 (EST)
 * I was thinking mostly of RationalWiki social ladder. --AKjeldsen 17:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
 * Ah yes, I see that now.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:48, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Kels was RW 1.0 in a unique way - not an editor, not a CP editor, but active on Doc and AKjeldson's blogs around the time of the "change" (late May). Susan is not cabal, not RW 1, but a heavy contributor. Want me to make her a bureaucrat just to fuck with RW, so you can claim credit? GK, likewise, is post cabal, post RW1, but deeply entrenched and respected. 01:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 * To the extent that we're capable of respecting anyone. --AKjeldsen 14:44, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 * Susan as bureaucrat? I think you're on you own with that one Human. Frankly I'm not sure that we'd want the credit for such a change.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:48, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 * I can categorically state that I was unaware of Rationalwiki until 22nd May 2007 - I found the CP column during the changeover from RW 1 -> RW 2. --82.44.64.173

=Goat= According to Conservaleaks #1687 (6/6/07), it springs form this Template worked on by Helios. RobSmith 16:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? TyComplain 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the diff? Nutty Roux 17:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, it contradicts several previous statements by Kels and human. TyComplain 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the links: discovered by Karajou, speculated on by TK, declared harmless by PJR, Andy warns of prosecutions, and Karajou recommends contacting the FBI. There you have it. Personality profiles of CP sysops with the background on the FBI incident & the goat meme, CP & RW history in a microcosm. RobSmith 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

=Greeter= "You know that person who welcomes you whenever you enter chain supermarkets?" No, I don't. I've never seen anyone do that. Rrose Selavy 10:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're British, if I recall correctly? Yeah, American stores such as Walmart do it. It can be quite creepy. Tyrannis 12:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)