Essay talk:Storkism

The spelling edits are strongly recommended!--Mr. B 21:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Move this to Storkism?

The current title is incredibly unwieldy, wouldnt it be better at storkism with this as a redirect?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no objections. But we have to admit somehow that this is not a usual article of RW by moving it onto space "fun:" or, maybe, "essay". Or to leave it as it is now.--Mr. B 21:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Better plain Storkism than Fun:Storkism. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 21:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good article for explanation of the term "Storkism", its origins, essence of phenomenon and so on. I.e., this is not description. This is only some personal viewing on the subject, a variant of the "theory". Therefore it is better to move it onto some special namespace or to leave it name without changes.--Mr. B 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved it.--^talk 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not principal. By and large it does not matter.--Mr. B 22:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Essay space

Why is this not an essay? I'm kinda not really sure that we should be translating anyone's blog, and not just talking ABOUT it. Blogs are copywritten, for one thing, but we don't generally offer up direct copys of people's work, from youtubers or Phrenglya.--GodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The main purpose of the publication — to familiarize English speakers with it. Namespace doesn't matter.--Mr. B 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

-- I confirm that I gave the permission to translation (and publication) of a parody of creationism (Storkism). I confirm that I have no complaints about copyright infringement. --Novvak (Yaroslav Novak) 10:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So is it CC BY-SA 3.0 like the rest of RW? Or will RW need some sort of Exemption Doctrine Policy (as another major wiki calls it) to continue to host it? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Copywritten" means that text has been created for an advertisement. It has little to do with copyright. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done

Well done to those who wrote this page, it's both funny and accurate. It goes to show the absolute ridiculousness of creationist arguments by applying them to things we already know have natural explanations. Keep it up!--92.162.123.89 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree; this is possibly the single funniest thing on the entire website. 81.144.132.166 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)