Fun talk:Cite

Oh noes!

He brokeses it!!1!one1!1!

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

It's beyond help I think. Prometheus 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on keeping it, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want a better article, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cite Prometheus 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to roll it back. I likes a bit of snark with me morning coffee, and this is just right. Give me a minute, and I'll toss on a link of wikipedia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit of snark? LOL. More like complete utter nonsense Prometheus (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You aren't by chance a Deadly Serious Party supporter, are you? I try to remain apolitical, harboring a fondness for nonsense. Truth may be found in its crevices, if you tread lightly enough. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You have no problem throwing out whole articles that you believe to be "incoherent and off mission". But apparently those high standards only apply to new users. Prometheus (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• My first leap to a premature conclusion is that apparently you have me confused with someone who gives a flying fuck. Irregardless, I'll lay out a few other points.
• One needs to be precise about the referent of the personal pronoun "you" when addressing a wiki mobocracy in main article talk space, lest confusion and (gasp) hurt feelings arise.
• If someone needs better info on citations, there is a splendid link there, complete with bouncing ball, thanks very much.
• Throwing out articles? Missed that one, I did... has consensus arrived on that one yet?
• I recommend small doses of lightening up at first, to be increased PRN.
• Is this really that important?

Thank you for your cooperation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't give a flying fuck, then why are you here on this talk page? Why did you revert me?
• We wouldn't want that now would we.
• I guess you can say that about most of Rationalwiki's content.
• No, but that didn't stop User:Human (who started this splendid article BTW) from deleting the article.
• This kind of "humor" stops being funny at around the age of twelve for most people. RationalWiki is supposed to be an anti-pseudoscience website, not a cheap Uncyclopedia knockoff.
• No it's not. Why do you insist on keeping this crap then? Prometheus (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I here to work or play, or what? I rolled the page back because I don't believe RW is meant to be a dumbed-down mirror of WP. Have a nice day. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"No, but that didn't stop User:Human (who started this splendid article BTW) from deleting the article." Deleting what article? I think you might be confusing the "delete" template, which is intended to provoke/promote discussion, with the actual act of deletion? ħuman 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete

I see no reason why this shouldn't just redirect to references. Blue (is useful) 03:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because that's a help page (oh, and if it did redirect to there, it wouldn't get there, double redirect), and this is an amusing if short mainspace article. ħuman 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is an article whose entire content is an elaborately researched pun and a Shakespeare quote, and has little mission relevance or relevance to other articles, a good mainspace article to have? Blue (is useful) 03:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it's funny. And important. And informative. And saucy! ħuman 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for snark, but this borders on irrelevance. You may now note my dissent in the captain's log. Blue (is useful) 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted! ħuman 05:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Huw. Then again, I'm always on the lookout for excessive seriousness to stomp on. EVDebs (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's at least two people who understand the inherent importance of Human's quirky humor. Blue (is useful) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this is funny. Vaporize it. Or are we going to have an article for every bad pun Human thinks of? -- Nx / talk 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mission

Deletion nomination resulted in stalemate, so I switched the template. It's funny, I'll admit, but it has nothing to do with the mission. Perhaps move to fun? Blue (pester) 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why move? It's funny, it is well-referenced... and it's completely on-mission. ħuman 04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er... why is it on-mission? Blue (is useful) 04:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It sights its sauces! ħuman 04:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

it now sites its 'orses in funspace. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean crapspace. -- Nx / talk 15:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need a crapspace. Or, we really need to actually delete stuff that's non-mission and non-funny. We only keep certain things for fear someone will bleat about RW being as bad as CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)