User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki KL

=Leaving and never coming back= I've deliberately left out all the June 2009 leavings - time will tell. Rrose Selavy 12:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dates & difflinks might be helpful. ToP isn't really a leaver - he is away in foreign climes & seems to be intending to come back (at least to some extent) - see comment here.   w easeLICIOuS  B ite M e 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info, I'll remove TOP. I couldn't fish out all the diffs etc as work beckoned. If there's anyone I've missed, please add. Rrose Selavy 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

CUR's cliché
Actually, Jack O'Neill says that a lot -- Nx  / talk 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What, "rationalwiki is a cliché"? :D Damn, I'll have to take out the joke now. Totnesmartin 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nx, are you sure? As in confusing "clique" and "cliché"? It is evident from CUR's parthian that he meant the latter. 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0005968/quotes -- Nx  / talk 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't answer my question. 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, clique makes more sense. -- Nx  / talk 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong lists
Many of the people listed as leaving are on the wrong page. Many of them never said "I'm leaving and never coming back."--Bob M 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mine was "leaving and not coming back under this username" originally. Armondikov 13:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

=Liquid Threads fiasco= Lqt has nothing to do with vector. -- Nx  / talk 21:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I just know that the fiasco started around the time we switched to vector. Punky McPunkersen 21:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because both are related to the MW upgrade we did during the server move. Vector is the new default skin, lqt is an extension that changes the way talk pages work. -- Nx  / talk 21:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It'd be interesting to see some sort of facts and myths about LQT. Such as how it's not being forced on people, how it's not a complete product and how the current system is sucky but we're used to it enough to not notice the problems. Armondikov 01:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, in fairness that last one is more opinion than "fact". Armondikov 01:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to make a page like that, but I can't really be bothered. -- Nx  / talk 06:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

=List of RationalWiki user names by category= I"m not really sterile. Jebsus I gotta change that. Sterile 02:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * hehehe. :p Refugee 02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive. Tytalk 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically "Blue" is from literature, viz. Special Topics in Calamity Physics by way of the protagonist Blue van Meer (which appeared as my signature for some time). Liveware Problem 08:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead and add it to "user names from Literature" too - no reason not to, and it does say that some names are in more than one category. Refugee 09:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Interesting idea, if totally pointless. Fascinating, of course, don't get me wrong. Just, you know. Armondikov 12:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of like the rest of this site?  W easelicious B ite M e 23:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rimshot. Armondikov 11:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Essay or not?
While I like this article, in its current form, it really isn't worthy of mainspace. Specifically, because it is from a first-person perspective. Which begs the question: was this meant for essay-space? If so, we should move it there. Punky McPunkerson 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also (and this is just me being nit-picky) the username "gooniepunk" originated not from the movie "The Goonies." However, since the real reason behind my old nickname stems from something I'd rather not talk about, saying it stemmed from "The Goonies" is acceptable. Punky McPunkerson 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed commentary. Therefore, not an essay. Worthy of mainspace? Or to be on this wiki at all? Isn't RWW for talking about RW? We have articles on the users - why not their names? But, it's up to you. Refugee 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Afterthought - I also apologize for the misinterpretation of your user name, it was just speculation on my part. It is fine to delete this article if you like, ok by me. :-) Refugee 18:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this a good page that belongs in the mainspace, don't delete it. --Admin 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can think of three other ginormous lists, keep. Tytalk 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No no no, I like this article. I just wasn't sure if you had intended it to sound like an essay or not. Thanks for clearing that up. Punky McPunkerson 22:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more along the lines of keep in main. :P Tytalk 22:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now now, like I said, I was just wondering if Refugee was intending it to be an essay or not. The article is good RWW content and is going nowhere. Punky McPunkerson 13:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all who like it! But, such controversy over this list - I couldn't have predicted this response. I was thinking it was just a funny little list that I was keeping about user names that I would share, hopefully for a laugh maybe... didn't know there would be such discussion about it. Refugee 15:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about the "Punky McPunkerson" username: Is it a reference to a mish-mash of ethnic heritages, to the McPunks, and/or to something else? 16:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's an instance of the "Xy McXerson" snowclone.--Burzum 18:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's creepy and it's kooky, it's altogether spooky, it's the RationalWikiWiki
This is extremely weird and creepy. Ace McWicked 23:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great contribution as always Ace. Guybrush Threepwood 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll try again: "this page is a valuable insight into the RW community and whoever complied it obviously has many more otjher things they could be doing yet decided to spend their time creating this well researched list...."
 * This is a goddamned fucking embarrassment. Ace McWicked 23:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure Refugee appreciates your comments. Guybrush Threepwood 23:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure Refugee appreciates your comments. I don't care who wrote it - it's extremely weird and creepy. Ace McWicked 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Stop whining and leave. Mbwun 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go fuck yourself. Ace McWicked 00:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anatomically impossible sweetie. Mbwun 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ooooooo! Another name! Mbwun.. stalking..stalking.. google search... ok, is it related to World of Warcraft: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/character/alleria/mbwun/simple or is it more like a character from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic_(novel)? I need to know which category to include it in. :p (geeze I'm weird and creepy!) lol. Refugee 00:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The novel. Mbwun 00:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus fuck. Is that your rogue? Nutty Roux 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't play MMOs. Mbwun 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well he's a fucking beast Mbwun. All heroic gear smartly reforged and the legendary daggers. A beast. Nutty Roux 02:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC)Wha...? Do you really think so? Why? It's just a fun little list of user names. I used to look at all the unusual user names at RW and find myself wondering why people chose the particular user names that they did. I didn't know what many of them meant, and found myself asking what is a Nebuchadnezzar or a Thanatos? Why would someone name themself Osaka Sun or VoxHumana? Or AceMcWicked, for that matter. So I started looking up the meanings of the user names that I didn't know. I began to keep a list, so that I wouldn't look up the same name again and again, forgetting that I had already researched it (like, oh yeah, I forgot that I already looked up the definition of Rhodoferax last month, etc.) I noticed that the names just kind of fell into certain categories, music-related, based on TV/movie characters, food or color-based, etc. I thought it was pretty interesting. I don't think it's all that weird to want to know the meaning of user names that I am not familiar with, in fact I also keep a list of words I encounter on RW that I don't know and their definitions. So, what's so weird about it? And as far as creepy, it's not like looking up people's real identities or trying to find out something about them in real life - that's stalking. I don't care in the least what anyone at RW's real name is and the user names are in no way tied to anyone's real life identity - it's just a list of silly user names.  So, no worries. Refugee 00:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But I could tell you something that is pretty creepy... if you don't already know. :-D Refugee 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go on then...;-) Ace McWicked 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may already know, and if not, maybe you shouldn't. lol. :p But seriously, do you really think this list of user names is creepy and should be deleted? Because if so, no problem - it can go, as it wasn't meant to be offensive or annoy anyone. I just thought it was interesting and funny. But if I'm wrong, by all means, feel free to dump it. Refugee 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Ace is being his usual self. Guybrush Threepwood 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Less creepy and more weird. And Refugee know's all to well about my usual self. But I won't dump it because there already seems to be a consensus to keep it - just expressing my opinion. Ace McWicked 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry babe. :-( I didn't intend to annoy you. Still love ya! Refugee 00:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not annoyed. Ace McWicked 01:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You only changed your tune because you learned someone you like (Refugee) made it. If Ty had made it, you'd still be pushing to delete it --Test fail 10:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Moving this comment back up where it originally was - somehow it got shoved waaaaaay down the page where it doesn't make sense, lol). I dunno about that, I prefer to think that I won him over with a good argument for it, lol. But same as you, I am a Ty-fan, he's a really decent guy and a friend of mine - me likes him much! Refugee 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What bullshit. This whole thing is weird and creepy. If Ty created my tone would be different because Ty is weird and creepy also, Refugee not so much. I can't push it for deletion because I am unsure of the rules of deletion here. Ace McWicked 21:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, deletion isn't happening, go take your ball and go play somewhere else. Mbwun 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I ask for deletion? No. And fuck you, I'll go where I please. Ace McWicked 22:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to your previous statement. Mbwun 22:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ones where i said I wouldn't ask for it to be deleted? Ace McWicked 22:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the one where you said you can't push for deletion because you are unsure of the rules. Mbwun 22:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So the two comments where i said I won't and can't? Ace McWicked 22:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why even bring it up at all unless you wished you could delete it? Mbwun 23:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bring up what? Ace McWicked 23:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * " I can't push it for deletion because I am unsure of the rules of deletion here." Mbwun 23:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * because someone stated: If Ty had made it, you'd still be pushing to delete it. So I clarified it doesn't matter who made it. I had already previously stated I wouldn't push for a deletion before I knew who had created this article and I don't know what the policy is anyway. This isn't very hard. Ace McWicked 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet why would you mention any of this at all? Mbwun 23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mention any of what? Ace McWicked 23:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck it. Mbwun 23:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck what? You're strange little man. Ace McWicked 23:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. I enjoyed this Gee~ --만두 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dumpling! :-D *big hug* So happy to see you here! Refugee 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I find the combing the wiki for names and even general locations far more creepy than this. Sterile 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What are the inclusion criteria
After all, none of my usernames are included and some of them have been pretty active. 217.115.65.15 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And shouldn't DinsdaleP be under TV/Movie names? 217.115.65.15 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have at! Tytalk 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems rather than making lists, it would be easier to make categories and then sort them. Much more self-organizing. Sterile 05:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any inclusion criteria, I don't think. Like any wiki-page, anyone can add or delete or do what they like to the page. How this came about wasn't planned, what happened was that I kept seeing RW user names that I didn't know what they meant, so I started looking them up one or two at a time, over a period of many weeks, and then so that I wouldn't forget that I had already looked a name up, and do it up again, (duplication of effort) I made a little list, which over time became a long list, so then I organized it into categories that the names seemed to naturally fall into - like, hey, another color-based name... or there's a mythical or historical name again! So it's just a rough list, that really wasn't planned in any order - and anyone can add a name, re-categorize, re-name, move them around, whatever.Refugee 05:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Add to that, sorry 217.115.65.15 that I didn't record any of your user names, I must not have been looking at RW on the days they were used, or maybe just overlooked them for some reason (or no reason - it was pretty haphazard) but I'd be happy to add them to the list, or you (or anyone) can. :-) Refugee 05:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

=List of active users= We can't get any statistics off the site to do this can we? While I'm on the subject, total number of edits ever would be a nice number to have as well. Even better would be to sort it by talk page and article page. Hey! we would do it like CP! Make (joke) recommendations that those who don't fulfill some arbitrary article edit count be blocked or something.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:20, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 * Sounds like a lot of work. -- 16:43, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 * Manually yes. But is any of it available automatically?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:58, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 * No way I know of. We should ask Human. -- 17:02, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 * Wildly inaccurate now. Needs updating. 92.40.25.238 20:08, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
 * Sign in and fix it then! human  20:16, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

Update
SRSLY. This is... wow. To work! Tyrannis 13:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just copy the list from RW:AU, methinks. Liveware Problem 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ok. hold on a bit. 173.253.148.133 15:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to login. Ok, I'll go do that. Tyrannis 15:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And now I have even more redlinks to get rid of. Let's see ~1 a day... hmm. Tyrannis 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mess
How could we clean this up?Ty 03:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it could use some explanations and updates. Liveware Problem 03:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

HAHA
2060 edits so far this month. Ty 01:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't expect that again. Ty 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete?
The problem with a list like this is that it requires a constant updating and, as this is a low-use Wiki, we don't really have the staffing available to constantly update an article like this. With that in mind, what say we that we delete this article as it is an exercise in futility through obsolescence? Punky McPunkersen 14:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RW:AU covers this perfectly well. Blast it into oblivion. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Vote to delete. Refugee 15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here goes nothing, then
I just hope I don't break the Wiki, as I keep getting the "Big Delete" warning when I go to delete. Punky McPunkersen 12:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because, when I still had server access, I set the "Big Delete" flag to go off for articles with an absurdly low number of edits. 09:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. That would've been funny, though, if a 95-edit deletion would've crashed the Wiki. Oh well, there's always next year.... Punky McPunkersen 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With how unstable RWW is most of the time, I wouldn't be surprised if you could crash it by deleting an article with 10 edits. Armondikov 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

=List of female users= Andrew Morrow should see this! --
 * That Andrew Morrow? 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, that Andrew Morrow - don't worry, he didn't really hurt anyone. He and I have something in common - we're both victims of female power on a wiki. Fall down 06:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lock
I'm not sure about the lock on this article. I know that Fd has some rather extreme ideas about women and we wouldn't want to be a shop window for them, but after your edit tea article does describe the situation on RW. There does indeed seem to a bit of affirmative action going on and it would seem to reasonable to comment on it. The fact that we don't like the views of the original author is neither here nor there.--False Flag 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean. From your point of view, without a major precipitating incident, locking the article on any level goes against the spirit of the site (or at least the site we would like to have). Though from my point of view, the lock is set to still allow the vast majority of registered editors (effectively everyone but Fall down) to continue editing it. 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a bureaucrat; we are equals—I trust your judgment in such matters. If you think the lock(s) is/are uncalled for, then I have no objections to you unlocking them. 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. I asked because you had not explicitly stated on this talk page why it was locked, and the edit line comment was brief. I did not want to start wheel war of locking and unlocking so I gave my opinion rather than simply reverting you.--False Flag 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reality check
This "article" ignores one inconvenient fact: all men that identify as such and are presently active have sysop powers on RW as well as women. And so do the gender-unspecified. I would suggest RWW delete it as pointless. Ironically, it even is completely devoid of anything that would actually support its claims - documented elsewhere on this site, the essay RA wrote that seemed to prompt the immediate sysoping of two XX-identified users. Human 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair comment I suppose. Also, for example Tokyo Rose is not a sysop - yet. But yes, now, anybody who stays on-site for more than a week gets sysop.  So the positive discrimination argument does lack force.   On the other hand that sock of Teresita was made sysop for being a chick, so there may be something in it.  But then, only one real example.  There is also the question of whether people who say they are women are, actually, women.  Perhaps Fall down is woman?  On the internet, who knows?--False Flag 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was never made sysop though I was there more than a week, so that can't be right. Fall down 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You launched a determined assault of vandalism on the wiki, using Tor. Why you did so does not matter, what matters is that you did so; you can hardly expect to be anytime soon after such an episode.   23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There is also the issue of whether the few isolated examples of users being promoted based on gender are part of a concerted effort to do so or based on the whimsy of the bureaucrat in charge.  23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To just jump in here FD, FF is not quite correct. we seem to have established an unwritten rule that anybody who makes a positive or even neutral contribution to the site rapidly becomes a sysop. As your first act was to blank the mainpage and you were later found to trying to encourage others to vandalise the site your chances of sysophood were never that good.--Bob M 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article relocation
I am currently updating the article to reflect its new title, so please do not edit it for a while. 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I am done. 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing below, you might want to rename it again, to "List of usernames on RW whose handlers claim they are female" or some such. You are aware that Cracker runs a whole family of believable "women" on CP, right? Human 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity
How many actual people are named here? I know at least 4 are sock puppets. Fat Tuesday 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How can we "know" any editor is female? Are we running DNA tests? Human 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha!! Hadn't thought of that one! Fat Tuesday 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the "self-identified" bit. 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you please inform us which of them are the sockpuppets? 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Fat Tuesday 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is most unhelpful of you. Why bother informing us of their sockpuppetry at all? 07:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to annoy & harass. :)   Fat Tuesday 07:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Toast
Do we know that she is a sock of SusanG? I remember seeing someone speculate about it on RW. Also, do we out socks here? FernoKlump 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See here.  Phantom Hoover  11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I used that link as a citation for the article. FernoKlump 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I hope that we are not going to have any RW cat wars here. Anyway, I'm not sure why we have this as it makes no comment about our apparently female editors apart from list them, so it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Perhaps if it analyzed them in some way by position on religion, abortion or whatever. Obviously we'd have to do the same thing for the male editors.

Mmmm. thinking about that ..... Perhaps we could create a RWW survey. Create a list of "What is your position on xxx" questions and ask everyone to fill it out (on the talk page of their article page here? On a big RW article page?) and we'd collate the results here. It would be a complete shambles of course, but there's not a lot going down at the moment and it would raise the profile of RWW, and could be a bit of fun. I know something similar happened with Rem, so we'd need to chose new questions.--False Flag 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok right, we do have a category for female users.. so is it necessary to have a list of female users as well? Probably not, I'd say. I like your idea of categorizing through a survey though. Refugee 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the survey idea. As for this page, I've deleted it since there were no objections. --  Nx / talk 16:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

=LowKey= I have posted quite a lot since December 2010, just not logged in. You may (or may not) want to mention that. LowKey 04:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not unless you want to out your IP. It's up to you, pal. Punky McPunkersen 14:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter Tyrannis covered it nicely, I think. LowKey 23:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing info
Needs more about moths. Rrose Selavy 20:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * hahahahahah :) Only after full disclosure at Kels LowKey 04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the bit about allying is inaccurate, as is the bit about what articles I worked on at CP. Although, according to the current trend in standards, should this not be limited to my RW activity? LowKey 04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could mention this I guess :) .LowKey 04:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Despite being a YEC"
I think this is a bit over-the-top, no? I realize it is mostly shunned on RW, but it feels kinda low-blowish. Speakerface 01:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It shows a depth of prejudice that is disturbing when one cannot credit that another holds a view without considering them mentally deficient. The phrase is a false dichotomy, and yes is a low blow - the acknowledgement of my intelligence is begrudging. Regardless, it matters little.  For a short article, there are already a couple gross errors, based on people assuming things without checking them (note the second sentence in the article). LowKey 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the article contains quite a bit of information. I'm not sure to which you are referring exactly.  I'll temper the statement I found "low-blowish", though.  Speakerface 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When arguing creationism, the creationists who are not outright shysters leave their brains at the door. This is understandable, since as CMI mouthpieces have stated several times, the formal principle of the creationists is that the Bible trumps reason, thus leaving no serious need for the latter in discussions of the origin of species.
 * The ideological nature of creationism also leads people with minimal technical ability but plenty of non-technical enthusiasm to try and take on the scientific establishment, thus catapulting themselves right off the deep end and further advancing the image of creationists as a pack of gibbering morons. 03:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (article related) Wesley (that do be Wesley with the speaker face, do it not?), the second sentence says that I "allied with" PJR at CP, but we actually did not have a whole lot of interaction there. Most of my interaction came between when I threw in the towel and when Philip did.  Also, the sentence says that I "worked on YEC-related material", which may well be true, would mischaracterised my CP edited somewhat.  Most of what I worked on was not YEC-related (although there was that one edit to "Crocodile"). LowKey 06:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Remainder of debate cut to rw:Debate:The trumping of reason

Inaccurate statement(s)
The statement about why I edited without logging in is pure speculation, and inaccurate. It really had nothing to do with TWIGOASK beyond the fact that thence occurred most of my edits. It was my way of demonstrating (to myself if no-one else had the insight to see it) that regardless of my account status I was not considered a community member but an unwelcome interloper. While we are on the subject of inaccurate statements, no-one has corrected the earlier inaccurate statements about my CP activity - although not being RW related they should probably be shorn altogether. LowKey 05:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Better? (I knew you refused to use your account due to your perceived standing in the community, but I thought some edits to the WIGO:ASK page were what touched off the controversy.) 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah, it's better. For the two or maybe three people wondering, what set me to unlogging was the fact that in almost every conversation (which was generally only at T:WIGO:ASK) at least one response was not about what I posted but about why was even posting at RW.  I have since seen some signs of RW actually becoming a community so I now log in, occasionally trying to nudge in the direction of a mature community.  LowKey 02:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is not a place for the thin-skinned. When disputing theological matters there (and your mere presence there would be understood as part of a theological dispute, similar to how many RationalWiki editors regard their presence at aSK), one must be prepared to take a lot of slop. One must also be prepared to ignore that slop for the sake of keeping the debate going. 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RW, a mature community! Hah! Apart from all the infighting and bickering we spend most of our time arguing with the pest of the moment, EL, JimJast, Marcus, Marawotsit. Most of the sane editors have left. Jack Hughes 11:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I disagree with your worldview, so I am a "pest". That's a very rational attitude you have for yourself there. You know, I disagree with the worldview of aSK too, but I've never got that attitude from Philip or LowKey or so on, only from RW. Maratrean 11:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is your posting of numerous essays, etc., in defense of your unusual views, to which Jack Hughes objected. Jack Hughes, to which "sane editors" are you referring, and how are they different from the modern crop? Back when I was first editing the Wiki, if I posted a theological essay I could count on the Gang of Four coming down on my head, and I had to make a separate page in which to pop off at communism because if I did it generally in talk-space, it resulted in protracted side debates that completely derailed the original discussion. 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are my views that unusual? Certainly my religious views are not very mainstream. But many of the arguments I make in favour of them I could deploy equally well in favour of more mainstream beliefs (e.g. Christianity), if I wished; in fact, in several of my essays I have sought to emphasise what I have in common with more common forms of theism (such as Christianity or Judaism or Islam or so on) rather than what is specific to my own religion. Maratrean 23:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Name
That appears to be what they call you sometimes. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 01:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that CP user Conservative's middle name is "Doll"? :) LowKey 02:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 02:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

=Loya Jirga= Will this page basically cover the slew of HCMs involving the binning, unbinning, blocking and unblocking of MarcusCierco and footwarmers, culminating in the formation of the Loya Jirga (it looks like that's the way it's going now) and the associated change in RW policies? Broccoli 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this will be about the events of Saturday-ongoing. We can have a different article for the mess with MC. 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec, then changed) OK, looking back, there was an HCM when MC was blocked. Then there was the RationalWiki Reform Society, the attempt to change policy so we could block MC and that HCM. Then someone sysopped him, and there was a minor HCM. Then the MC essays started, and then MC admitted to being a troll, deleted a few pages and was binned. Then some drunken idiot started a campaign to free MC and the whole wiki turned into a massive HCM. MC kept socking up and trolling pretty much at will, while the mob argued. Then we had another Debate:BlockMC, Nx started burning MC's edits and the wiki went mad again. Which of these bits need their own pages? Broccoli 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, this place has a page on the Reform Society, and the Great MarcusCicero Blocking Incident, which includes the sysopping. So a page on the trolling admission, the binning and the 'free MC campaign' would be needed to span the gap between that and Loya Jirga. Broccoli 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, and probably an umbrella page to help put the whole thing together. 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is just a mess. We're going to have our hands full figuring out what's going on.  Theemperor 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any idea what to call all this? Campaigns of MarcusCicero? Orations? The free MC thing needs a name, too. Broccoli 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seriously think it's a good idea to name this whole thing after MarcusCicero? Nine 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he did start it. Broccoli 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In much the same sense that rats started the Black Death. "Campaigns of MarcusCicero" is a flattering name. It suggests co-ordination and insight, and several other qualities that Marcus does not have. He isn't campaigning: he's throwing toys.
 * I would suggest "the End of MarcusCicero", if you really need dramatic name. Nine 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked the "MarcusCicero Wars", which doesn't imply planning to as great a degree. 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the origins of the Loya Jirga name, and rather poor quality of MCs trolling, perhaps it could be called the MarcusCicero Insurgency... --TheEgyptian 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe even drop the MarcusCicero part, and expand it to include issues with EL and TK's return. Perhaps "The Great Insurgency"? Theemperor 12:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe another umbrella page, to cover all the recent HCMs, MC related or not. But the MarcusCicero Wars go all the way back to before the Great Pissing Contest. This is a guy who has been trolling an obscure wiki since December 2007. On the subject of what to call the recent bout of HCMs, the Great Insurgency sounds nice. What about the Glorious Revolution? Assuming anything on RationalWiki actually gets changed, that is. Broccoli 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Issues with Earthland? What issues? There was simply one "editor" who started a "debate" that was regarded by virtually all other editors as pathetic time-waisting joke, although Armondikov cited it later. --Earthland 14:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue being that tempers got frayed to the point where someone tried to ban a harmless user. Broccoli 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(UNDENT) The Glorious Insurgency perhaps? Sounds wonderfully.... Afghan...--TheEgyptian 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking on it, I prefer the Great Insurgency. The page on the chaos that led to MC in the bin and the 'free MC' campaign needs a name, too. Broccoli 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection
My Wiki-break had nothing to do the HCM involving MC and the Loya Jirga. Rather, it had to do with the mini-HCM involving banning Earthland (and being attacked for it on my talkpage by some irrational atheist) combined with tons of real life shit. I would prefer that it be kept out of being a part of the MC shit, as, I assure you, that had nothing whatsoever to do my 3 day trip to Milwaukee. MNpunkboy 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just grabbed everyone who had announced they were leaving from the WIGO. Broccoli 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead?
Should we declare this dead?--False Flag 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only in as much as the fire department is "dead" if there are no fires to put out. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it only ever made one sort of decision. Nobody seems to have noticed the anniversary in Feb when, presumably new elections should have taken place. Finally one of its members has, sadly, passed away.--False Flag 18:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is long dead. Ty 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that there's never really been a case where it's been needed. It was only even brought in to decide on what to do with MC because he was a persistent asshole. And it never even managed to sort that out properly. It's a dumb idea and always was when you consider how RW "works". Even doing authority by committee was never going to be very effective because its rulings would either be a) very poorly communicated or b) outright ignored or c) both. Armondikov 18:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is long dead. Night Film 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we should declare it so.--False Flag 12:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dead, I suppose, like the Estates-General were in France after their dissolution in 1614; I venture to predict the next time the trolls attack, the Loya Jirga will have its 1789 moment. 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm late, but I've delacred it dead. Everything about it is now past-tense. Punky McPunkersen 11:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)