User talk:Slink

Hello and welcome Slink. Thanks for slinking in. :-)--Bobbing for apples 04:44, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That was quick! Hey, I just deredlinked some of stuff by linking to wikipedia?  But idunno, maybe you guys really wanted an article on that.  I tried to stick to really encyclopedic crap that maybe there's no reason to do. Slink 04:45, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, we don't really like to link to WP. While we love and respect WP, if an article is necessary we prefer to have a RW one with our own point of view. The red links exist to remind us to write them when we feel motivated. So I'm afraid that your deredlinking - while well meant - does rather go against our objectives.--Bobbing for apples 04:51, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * :( Dag. Slink 04:52, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * There used to be different points of view, but it became apparent that, if we wanted to, we could link everything to WP. And then we would be no more than a reference site for WP.  Our articles should all try to further our goals of  1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.and 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.  Whether they actually do that is sometimes debatable.  :-) --Bobbing for apples 04:57, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, yeah, but the flipside is, you know, not sure if it's necessary to document that broad-based fundamentalist antiseptic movement. Course, now that I mention it...Slink 05:02, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * It is perhaps the case that some of our editors may get carried away with their own specialties. :-)--Bobbing for apples 05:06, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

<--And hence, redlinks should be to articles that further that agenda. If they won't, they should be delinked. Oh, and Welcome to the Dollhouse, "Slink"!!! human  05:02, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks, "human"!Slink 05:05, 19 October 2007 (EDT)