Talk:Main Page/Archive23

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

Recaptcha

I like this.. who's idea was it? CPWebmaster 01:07, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Subject, you sentence lacks one. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 01:09, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I is subject. He lacks a direct object in a form other than pronoun. DickTurpis 01:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)

What is Recaptcha? - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 01:17, 1 February 2009 (EST)

The intended subject was recaptcha. Recaptcha is that thing that makes you type words to make an account. As a matter of fact, I liked it so much I just added it to CP. CPWebmaster 01:19, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Okay. How does that affect the Main page? - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 01:25, 1 February 2009 (EST)

It affects EVERYTHING! 67.242.66.251 02:01, 1 February 2009 (EST)

And: adding Recaptcha totally BORKED the site, did it? Har de har!!!!!

Sockpuppet

I notice a number of people putting "sockpuppet" or "vandal" notices on otherwise virgin user pages. As this has the effect of de-redding the special pages entries and rendering them less noticeable, I believe that it is counter-productive and would suggest that the practice be discontinued.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 14:47, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I suggest to vaporize any examples of such.--Ipatrol 10:34, 17 February 2009 (EST)

I agree. It's usually the {{vcat}} template, which is redundant since the vandal category was deleted. Vandals with redlinked names are much easier to spot in RC. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Vandals are easy to spot as few make edits that increase the page size. Look for all negative edits. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 22:48, 18 February 2009 (EST)

RW should have the best creationism bullshit on the web^2.0

RW should have a thorough and detailed account of all that ar cretard (with thorough and detailed explanations wikilinked throughout). Evolution would make Ken

nut, but Evolution (no jokes) would set homskollars straight (e.g. "There are no transitional fossils").

Places like TalkOrigins are on to something, but the BS needs to be displayed in an uninterrupted form that cretards are used to. It would illustrate to people of irrational persuasions that not only do we completely understand their arguments, we can even portray them clearer and more aesthetically. They need to think "this is better than CP/ICR/DrDino and it makes sense as long as I don't read anything that is readily available". With hour powers of rationality, we could easily created the best creationist argument on the google.

I don't think it would be very hard to steal CP's correctness, especially in light of their recent bout with technology. Any interest in such a project? Neveruse513 00:55, 3 February 2009 (EST)

No, not really, but thanks for trying.... ħuman 01:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Neveruse513 if you want to set homeschoolers straight about evolution, there is still the Conservapedia:Evolution side-by-side that has been left hanging for about 2 months. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:09, 3 February 2009 (EST)

HELP!!!

Would people please stop crashing the wiki? --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 19:04, 3 February 2009 (EST)

What does this have to do with the main page? - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 19:48, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I would like to point out that the main page is the first thing you see once the wiki finally comes back up after an hour of being in limbo. . . --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 19:49, 3 February 2009 (EST)

So you just post on the first thing you see do you? That explains a lot. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, and the crashing affects the entire wiki. So it does belong on the main page. Where- oh wait! Sorry, I didn't see the tech support. Moving there. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 20:07, 3 February 2009 (EST)

What the hell crashing are you prattling on about--it's been working fine for me all day. TheoryOfPractice 20:11, 3 February 2009 (EST)

It was offline for a few minutes or so. My fault, TMT sorted it out. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:13, 3 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) Is the Main Page talk now literally just for talk about the Main Page itself? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:13, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Well tech problems go to tech support, what is happening in the world can go to WIGO world and just random prattling can be taken to the saloon. I suppose mainpage and major announcements go here. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:15, 3 February 2009 (EST)

The main page talk should be about talk about the wiki- which tech support can fall under. It can go either place. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 20:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)

No it is for discussing the main page and other major things not what ever random idea pops into your head today. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)

And the wiki crashing is random how? And weasel, it was gone for at least 45 minutes. And this is the second time its happened. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 20:21, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Trent is aware of the problem and is going to fix it. Now run along and find something else to do. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)

From a practical standpoint, CUR, posts on tech support will probably be seen by Trent before they would on other pages. This is more to make Trent's life easier than anything. Corry^{Maybe it was the eleven months he spent in the womb.} 20:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) As said above: I didn't see the tech support desk. Leave me alone. Rusty-spotted catspeed. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 20:35, 3 February 2009 (EST)

No need to take offense, I'm just describing the rationale. Corry^{Maybe it was the eleven months he spent in the womb.} 20:41, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Anti-Intellectualism

Does anyone else think that an article about anti-intellectualism would be welcome, rather than the redirect to George W. Bush that's in place now? Given that this is the sort of thing RationalWiki was made to oppose, I think an article about it makes sense. --Anonymous

Most definitely. We should also have an extensive see also section: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, ASchlafly, Karajou, TK, etc. etc. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{feline fanatic} 21:13, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Login Warning

Perhaps some sort of warning on the main page telling users to log in before they post would be wise? Remember - Big Brother Teacake is watching you! EddyP 14:20, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Beware of TK. Wahahahahah! -User:TK/sig

Edit this page. That's the warning above the edit box when you're not logged in. -- Nx ^talk 14:43, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Yup, no one would ever "usefully" hit "edit" while looking at the main page. The warning should be where Nx suggests, but try not to make it too CP-centric, since it will mean nothing to those who don't care about CP but like to play on RW. ħuman 14:52, 4 February 2009 (EST)

What do I do if I made some anon edits before I decided to get an account here? Can I have those anon addresses changed to my user account name? Just in case I ever decide to get a CP account, of course, and they come looking here for my IP. - Cuckoo 12:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)

New Meta-category(gories?)

This discussion was moved to Saloon bar.

Antivax bombshell

Moved to Saloon Bar. Come have a drink.

Thread that's actually about the main page shock

There's something about the random featured articles that's been bugging me for a while. I don't like the way it cuts off in mid-article at a random point (with one it cuts off during a section title and looks really scrappy). What I propose is that for every cover story, a template featuring a precis of the article appears here, with a link to the main article. I'm quite happy to do the grunt work of all this. What say you? Totnesmartin 15:37, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Sure, sounds good. Right now it just grabs the first "x" (I think it's 800) characters, and we noinclude templates and images - although those characters still get counted. One way around this that would keep things "dynamic" (ie, if article improves, so does "snippet") would be to drop the character thing and transclude the entire article - but to put "includeonly" tags around the appropriate chunk of text. What do you think of that? The tags could go in first, so it wouldn't break the main page while we were doing it. ħuman 17:04, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Sounds good to me. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:13, 13 February 2009 (EST)

that would be easier. Each article has a general intro, and we just transclude that to the main page. Let's do it that way then. I might have to use my bot account to fiddle with some things if that's ok with everyone. Totnesmartin 17:24, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I've increased the grab from 750 to 1000 characters - it looks OK on my steam 800x600 monitor, but I won't be doing any more tonight, my connection is being a twat again. I'll pick this up in the morning. Totnesmartin 17:47, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Ok, what are these "includeonly" tags? <includeonly> shows up in the text, so it isn't that. I'll try noincludes around the non-intro text. Totnesmartin 06:50, 15 February 2009 (EST)

And using noinclude tags doesn't work either the <noinclude> tag shows on the manin page as does the text within in. I'm tempted to go back to the template idea. Totnesmartin 07:04, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It's the opposite of noinclude, everything enclosed in includeonly will only appear when the template is included, not on the template page. For example: Template:User VoteHope uses includeonly to cat the user page, but not the template page. -- Nx ^talk 07:10, 15 February 2009 (EST)

And what, precisely, do I have to type? Totnesmartin 07:46, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It doesn't seem to work, I've tried noinclude. Includeonly would hide the text from the article itself and it wouldn't prevent the rest from showing on the main page, so it's useless. I'm looking for a different solution. It's possible to only include the lead section, but some articles, for example Behe:The Edge of Evolution, Interview, don't have one. -- Nx ^talk 07:54, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I'll go with the templates idea then. Totnesmartin 08:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I've got an idea. Give me a few minutes to test it. -- Nx ^talk 08:03, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Fire away - I've got distracted by my Smash Hits book again... Totnesmartin 08:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Ok, here's how it goes: you create a new section at the end of the cover story article called cover. Write the stuff that should appear on the main page under that, and only that section will be included. Then includeonly the cover section so it doesn't appear in the article itself. See User:Nx/sandbox and User:Nx/sandbox2. Although if you're going to do this, it might be a better idea to simply write a lead section for those articles that don't have one. -- Nx ^talk 08:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Even better: For articles that have a lead section, simply add <includeonly>==cover==</includeonly> directly above the lead. the lead section will be included. For articles that don't, add <includeonly>==cover== stuff that should appear on main page </includeonly> directly above the first section. See User:Nx/sandbox, User:Nx/sandbox2 and User:Nx/sandbox3 -- Nx ^talk 08:38, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Argh, you guys are right, I forgot how includeonly works again. Surely there is a tag that will do what we want??? It would be nice to keep this simple... ħuman 17:28, 15 February 2009 (EST)

yes, I'm thoroughly confused by the whole thing now. Totnesmartin 17:42, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I'm gonna study up on it and apply my eighth grade graduate brain to it! ħuman 17:52, 15 February 2009 (EST)

As I thought, it looks like onlyinclude is what we want to use. It's the "missing" version of inclusion control I imagined surely existed. ħuman 17:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)

• onlyinclude. The markup <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> indicates that only text surrounded by "onlyinclude" markup should be transcluded onto another page. This is the most subtle of the partial transclusion tags because it often overrules the others. If there is at least one pair of "onlyinclude" tags on a page, then whenever this page is transcluded, it is only the material within the "onlyinclude" tags which gets transcluded. There can be several such sections, and within each such section, some material might be further excluded by "noinclude" tags, and might also be surrounded by "includeonly" tags so that it does not appear on the original page itself. But material outside the "onlyinclude" tags will be ignored when the page is transcluded onto another page. This can be useful, for example, to repeat a small part of one page on a second one: just surround the small part by onlyinclude tags, and transclude it onto the second page.

Onlyinclude does transclude the intro - but it makes the intro invisible in the actual article. Sod it, I'm going with the templates. Aylesburymartin (making a rare appearance) 08:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Evolution headline

Quote: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." To me, ignoring the fact that the time periods are slightly different, this means that most of the increase in undecideds have come from those who were previously rejecting evolution. In other words the percent rejecting evolution has declined from 48 in 1985 to 39 in 2005. (sorry I meant to put this on the WIGO page)

I'm sure we've discussed this survey before, perhaps in a Ken context. Totnesmartin 14:18, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Cascading protection?

May I add cascading protection to the main page?--Ipatrol 10:56, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, but only during nighttime hours. Neveruse513 13:56, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think we really use cascade protection at all. We very rarely protect anything. This page has basic protection because vandals were habitually blanking it, but vandalising the individual templates happens much more rarely. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:26, 17 February 2009 (EST)

When ex-users from Conservapedia come here, the main page is our welcome mat. If a template on it has been vandalised, it does not reflect well on us to the user, besides, only sysops even know about those templates.--Ipatrol 22:31, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Our most basic policy is we don't protect anything unless it is essential. Unless someone is attacking the templates then why protect them. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 22:33, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, Ipatrol, sure. Except that those templates have never been vandalized. Also, we enjoy reverting vandalism, protection takes away that fun. ħuman 22:59, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Who's "we"? I think it's a pain in the arse. Totnesmartin 13:46, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I guess since I don't get to do it often I consider it fun. I don't get to because all you people east of my alleged time zone get to it first, I guess. ħuman 22:02, 18 February 2009 (EST)

From our new(ish) RationalWiki: Community Standards:

• RationalWiki generally does not protect pages. The community feels that, given the ease with which vandalism can be reverted, protection is unnecessary. (An exception is that some sysops do protect their own userpage and signatures for peace of mind.)--Bob^{bing up} 03:03, 19 February 2009 (EST)

This is ridiculous.

After reading only a few pages of this wiki, I am appalled at the stances you take, even daring to suggest that homosexuality is even SLIGHTLY natural. I am disgusted on that entire article you have created that encourages teenagers to have sex, rather than teaching them the true path of waiting untill the time is right. It is for that reason that I call upon God to bless you, and help you see the errors of your ways, and understand that it is only through accepting the narrow path of Him that you can be saved. I beg you, although I cannot force you, to turn around before it is too late and you meet His judgement, and face your eternity in Hell. ^{— Unsigned, by: Shatoyaah C / talk / contribs}

I won't be turning around any time soon - at least not when you're in the room. Backs to the wall Boys! DogP 02:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes. . . are you a Poe? If not, are you Andrew Schlafly? And see if you learn a bit of tolerance. --"CUR^talk 19:30, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Why don't you write an essay explaining your position so we can ridicule discuss it? - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 19:39, 18 February 2009 (EST)

He is a Poe. I hope. And why would he be looking for pages on sex, anyway, hmmm? --"CUR^talk 19:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Conservative fanatics tend to have very dirty minds. "That which is resisted, persists." --Gulik 19:46, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If homosexuality isn't even "slightly natural", then where did the lesbian whiptail lizards come from? Bio-engineered by the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy? Still, even if you are a troll, I hope you continue to post here. Here I can reply. --Gulik 19:46, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If you look for anything too much, you can find an example of almost anything. Why God willed those animals to do what they do is beyond me, but I have no doubt that we will recieve that answer in due time. ^{— Unsigned, by: Shatoyaah C‎ / talk / contribs}

Shatoyaah, I appreciate your concern for my fictional soul and its alleged immortality, and I hope that your prayers for us make at least you feel better. As for myself, I am appalled at some of your claims and will work will whatever real means are at my disposal to enlighten you. ħuman 21:59, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If there's an answer to find, we'll get it by SCIENCE!, not by praying for God to download The Truth into our brains. And please sign your posts with --~~~~. --Gulik 23:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If we could ban for ideology, this user would be next in the firing line. Go to cp: Shatoyaah C, this is not the website for you, further posts like this may be trolling--Ipatrol 23:06, 18 February 2009 (EST)

And yet, we do not ban for ideology. I find Shatoyaah's beliefs to be woefully incorrect and pointless, but Shatoyaah is entitled to those beliefs. We can disagree, we can argue, but we do not ban just because someone has a differing mindset from us. If Shatoyaah wanted to edit an article, so long as it is not outright wandalism, I would not mind. If Shatoyaah came back just to argue and was willing to just debate, I would not mind. Freedom of belief, or lack of, even if I completly disagree with the belief. Javasca₧ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?!

Ipatrol, please refrain from telling people to leave the site, you do not speak on our behalf - in fact, you are in direct opposition to main page itself's invitation: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." ħuman 23:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Unlike CP, when we say 'we don't ban for ideology', we MEAN it. We let Heart of Gold post.... --Gulik 23:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)

The day we ban for ideology there'll be some sparks flying... ArmondikoV^gnostic 16:09, 19 February 2009 (EST)

But you banned me. All I did was question your ideology. Fall down

What I ask is for this user to agree to disagree, nothing more. Filling pages with pointless discussion with more heat than light helps no one. However, meaningful discussion and opposition is helpful in allowing us to evaluate and strengthen our arguments, like a devil's advocate. So I do welcome this user if he/she can provide us with rational arguments for his/her positions.--Ipatrol 18:48, 20 February 2009 (EST)

And if they can't? Personally I welcome anyone wishing to debate us in a polite manner, even if I dislike their views. perhaps through debate they may reconsider. Perhaps you might. Totnesmartin 18:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'm keen for people to debate us in a funnymanner. 21:45, 20 February 2009 (EST)

After reading the first section of this thread, I am appalled at the stance of the complainant, That someone who (apparently) believes in the supernatural boogies of God & Jesus should have the temerity to criticise the lifestyle of anyone else is beyond all poeishness (new word?). This is why godbotherers really get up my parts and make me want to smite them with plagues of frogs, toads & locusts. You cannot have a debate with anyone who's main argument is "godsedit" (that's a variant of goddidit). This is the sort of person who behaves as they do for fear of punishment, rather than through humanity and they make me sick. _and marmite 21:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Ta very much.

Dear RationalWiki,

Thank you. Thank you ever so much.

There's a nice big 'StumbleUpon' button I have in Firefox. And I click it every day (perhaps more than I should). And it just so happened that today the magic button took me to this place. Specifically, your article on 'Russell's Teapot'. 'What's this?' I thought, as a stranger in this strange wikiland. I read the article, and I soon smiled.

I have not smiled quite as widely as I did today for quite some time.

Thank you all. Thank you for hosting, writing and supporting a place where rational thought is promoted. Thank you, for making a wiki out of it. Thank you for having a (rather excellent) sense of humour on top, too.

But most of all, thank you for making me smile. =D

A very fine day to you all. --213.106.47.175 10:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

You're most welcome. Why not sign up and join in? We don't (usually) bite.--Bob^{bing up} 10:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yup, and signing up comes with a free group orgy on December 21st, 2012! Javasca₧ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?!

Is that new accounts only? Totnesmartin 15:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

And for a limited period? Damn. I'll have to make do with my normal real-life orgies now... ArmondikoV^gnostic 16:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Appearance

I've started using the Firefox speeddial extension which shows thumbnails of commonly accessed pages.

RW

CP

WP

It strikes me that we have Main Page in big letters and it looks rather clunky compared with the other two. Although CP has a blank area which wastes space. I suggest that we remove the redundant Main Page text and move things north like WP. Генгис^evolving 06:36, 21 February 2009 (EST)

RW improoved

RW improooooved

IIRC WP uses some kind of javascript hack or it's a new feature in MediaWiki which we don't have. I'll see what can be done. -- Nx ^talk 06:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I was wrong, it's a css hack, I've added it to our Common.css. Clear your cache and refresh -- Nx ^talk 06:42, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Great work. There's still a bit too much white space at the top for my taste but definitely an improvement. Thanks. Генгис^evolving 06:58, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Removed that too -- Nx ^talk 07:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Well spotted, I don't think I ever noticed it before. But does anyone know why the corners are rounded in FF but not IE, Opera or Safari? ArmondikoV^gnostic 07:06, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Because it's advanced CSS stuff that they don't support. FF supports it only because of XUL, but in a nonstandard way. -- Nx ^talk 07:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I've added border-radius in addition to -moz-border-radius for the more css3 compliant browsers, it should now work on Safari I think. Could someone test it please? -- Nx ^talk 07:17, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Excellent, I think that's just about right. Генгис^evolving 07:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)

And I can finally get the rounded box thingie on Safari. Time cubic Phantom Hoover! 07:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

This is the internet equivalent of a weekend at home rearranging the furniture. (I hate it when my wife says "I've been thinking".) Генгис^evolving 08:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)

A significant RationalWikian with a spouse? Something is wrong... Time cubic Phantom Hoover! 08:58, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I had always noticed that Firefox rendered the rounded corners and Safari didn't. Being a diehard Mac user, I naturally assumed this was due to the superiority of the Mac platform. But now I too see the rounded corners. We are indeed Thinking Different! DogP 12:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Next thing you'll be telling me Mac is superior because there's only one mouse button. Oh wait... :P -- Nx ^talk 13:02, 22 February 2009 (EST)

What do you mean "only"? The rounded corners were probably not showing because they don't look very good, so OSX was making web design decisions for me, which I welcome. DogP 13:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

A joke, Apple claims one mouse button is better than two, because it's less confusing (BS), fortunately they'll soon replace the mouse with touch control. -- Nx ^talk 13:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Ahem; Apple has been selling 3-button mouses since 2005, and the laptops can be configured to do a secondary click whenever you put both fingers on the trackpad and click. Time cubic Phantom Hoover! 13:19, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I conveniently forgot those little details -- Nx ^talk 13:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Come on, Nx, can't you spot a little tweaking from me?! Nah, I've been rocking only Macs or unix boxes proudly since the early Eighties. And using a three-button mouse on my Macs exclusively since the early Nineties. The old one-button mouse argument has always had about as much credibility as the "you can sharpen a razor blade under a model of the Pyramid of Cheops" story. DogP 13:32, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'll have to tweak the sarcasm detector. -- Nx ^talk 13:47, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe I missed it

Maybe I missed it or only mods could do it. But I would love to redirect Macbeth and Iago to the page of TK.--Tripcode 03:34, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Anyone can redirect, it's just "#REDIRECT [[page_name]]", but I think we're trying to cut down on the amount of snarky and irrelevant redirects. ArmondikoV^gnostic 08:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Entire site design beginning to look like we're run by nutjobs

What's that new box at the top of this page, the beige thing with all the shite in it about use four tildes, etc.? Between that, the fucking stupid chalkboard, the two other boxes that tell you something or other but I can't be arsed to read them, the vast amount of legalese and mind-numbing copy at the top of the CP:WIGO page, our design is starting to look like that nutjob website we were checking out yesterday. I'm talking about

Web Design by mob is doubleplusungood

this stuff -->

Can we PLEASE not start adding all these stupid boxes and panels, etc? Keep it simple and clean. Now, what are we going to do about it? I want to yank all those boxes, for a start. DogP 17:31, 25 February 2009 (EST)

You're right, we're starting to look like a badly maintained wikiproject. We don't need all that wikipedia-style formalism, people know about wikis by now, and I'll bet that RW is nobody's first ever wiki experience. Clean away! Totnesmartin 17:38, 25 February 2009 (EST)

True, very true. The talkpage bocks is def superfluous & the chalkboard's overkill here. _and marmite 17:41, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Example: All the boilerplate on top of WIGO@CP

This has been bugging me for ages. There is like a half screen wall of boring, in undifferentuated dull new roman font, before you get to the WIGOs. It is clear as the nose on my face that 99.7685476874687465243% of the people who visit WIGO@CP are there to lazily read them (and probably just the latest few) rather than aquaint themselves with the coma inducing minutiae of wikiality we all apparently find so fascinating. Open you mind to my superior aesthetic and you will see the truth.

1. put all the how-to crapola at the bottom of the page, maybe include at targeted link to it on the top to keep my right makes might ADD from twitching.
2. Move the way cool CP info box so that it is right justified and in the same block as the latest Wigos
3. Replace said boiler plate with some terse, pithy and amusing expository verbiage.

Do it for the goat recipes^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:22, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Why don;t we discuss this at talk:WIGO CP? ħuman 19:22, 4 March 2009 (EST)

We could probably do it for all 4 WIGOs actually. World and Blog definitely have some stuff there and Clog is minimal. Though I'm not sure about standardising them all because they have widely different rules and types of people who view/contribute. ArmondikoV^gnostic 09:13, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Yes, I kind of like the divergence between them. ħuman 23:01, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Featured Picture

One thing that always gets me is their "Featured Masterpiece" on CP. I thought it would be cool if we could put "Le Pape Formose et Etienne VII", 1870, by Jean Paul Laurens as ours on the front page. It features Pope Stephen the VII putting his dead predecessor, Formose, on trial. I thought that it would be slightly on-mission because of the stupidity of the case.--Nate River 20:25, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah, maybe, but then what? And why do we have to imitate/try to outdo CP on our main page? Perhaps there is an article it could grace? ħuman 22:56, 7 March 2009 (EST)

The featured artwork is one of the few things I like at CP. If we had something like that, we could also include stuff like political cartoons and keep things somewhat relevant to current events. As for the article, I have been planning on writing about the trail, but am doing serious, non-wikipedia research on the trial--Nate River 23:12, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Yes, it is actually a genuine "content" - JM takes his art seriously. Sadly, he fails at page layout. Anyway, the only trouble with adding moar "featured" stuff to the main page is we don't have the peoplepower to keep it up to date - ie, refresh it once in a while. However, some of our "best of amusements" (as featured randomly on the main page) are images - any can be. How much work are you willing to endure to make this a worthwhile feature? ħuman 00:20, 8 March 2009 (EST)

We should actually put more stuff we've made on the main page - randomising featured pictures a la cover story would be good. I sometimes wonder if we should have a "new content" slot too, which might bring people back regularly. Totnesmartin 15:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

We'd need Nx to do that. I doubt that we could simply add a piece of wiki-coding for something like that. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:16, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

O rly? Time cubic Phantom Hoover! 16:17, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

What? --  Nx/talk  16:18, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

You mean something like this? --  Nx/talk  16:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

it'd be better to pick and choose new articles manually rather than just transclude "special:newpages" - My last effort was crap, and deffo not main space material of any sort. Perhaps something like Wikipedia's Did You Know section, which I'm completely biased about because I've got one coming up there... Totnesmartin 17:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I was just showing CUR that "ZOMG This is so complicated only Nx can do it" is not true. --  Nx/talk  17:14, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

The random featured pictures idea sounds great. I can look after it if someone sends me a link to a help file.--Nate River 19:16, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it would be good to have something visual on the Main Page. It looks quite dry & texty, which may be a turn off for visitors to the site. Featured images might be problematic, as we're not really an image-driven site. But it would be good to have some sort of picture, or at least a bit more colour on the Main Page. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Random featured article redux

How do you like this? (ctrl-r required because I had to add something to Common.css) --  Nx/talk  18:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I love it. Btw, ctrl-r was not required. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 18:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

That's great. Totnesmartin 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

That is pretty cool, the fade doesn't cover the whole article on the version of Mozilla I'm stuck using at the moment, I'll check it again on another machine later. ArmondikoV^gnostic 12:55, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

There are some technical problems which I don't have the time to sort out now, so consider this a mockup. Some of the cover story articles bork it too. --  Nx/talk  13:09, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I dunno, it's a cool "exploit" but I think it looks a bit odd. ħuman 18:57, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Straw poll

Here's a lickle ickle straw poll on the new main page proposals above. Stick yer name where yer opinion lies, ladies! Totnesmartin 14:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Featured picture

Should we have a Featured picture on the main page?
Yes please _and marmite (hoo's pickin' 'em?)

Nate River says he'll do it, but there should be a debate process a la cover story nominations. Totnesmartin

--<choose> <option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 14:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT) (Go business cat!)

• yeah Mei 19:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

No thanks

• I'm not too sure about this, it would break the page layout, as one half would become significantly longer, and the entire page would also become much longer. Then there's the question of which pictures we want to show and why. --  Nx/talk  14:58, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

LOLcats, CP screenshots, and fossils perhaps? --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 14:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

LOLcats: we are trying to be half-serious, no? CP screenshots: pointless mostly, since you wouldn't be able to read the text and RW is trying to move away from CP; fossils: ?? --  Nx/talk  15:06, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Evolution. Maybe good wildlife pics (maybe)? Like the anole? Or the crab? Or that other anole pic on my user page? --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 15:09, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

• Against — "Featured picture" sections only work on websites with substantial collections of pictures to work with, which hardly describes us. Conservapedia's featured images are all old paintings, and therefore in the public domain; Uncyclopedia's featured images depend on a small but dedicated community of photoshoppers (meaning all of their images are original, or at least altered enough to be fair use); and Wikipedia uses images taken, released into the public domain, and then uploaded by their massive editor base. Please note that any featured image system we could come up with would be nothing like these, thus raising serious fair use questions. (That is to say, while most of our images fall under fair use, within the context of the articles they are shown in, stripped of that context and flaunted on the front page just because we want to put an image up would make us little better than Conservapedia when it comes to copyright law.) Furthermore, is there an actual reason to have a featured image? I can maybe see such a feature added, if (1) the pictures were all immediately relevant to our mission goals, and (2) we had enough of them. I don't see either coming about easily for the time being, so I remain opposed to implementing such a feature. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Against - RA pretty much covered my reasons and then some. ħuman 18:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Against. Unless we make an effort to put together pictures that make sense, no... Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 20:01, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Against. Despite all the picture we have non would be mainpage material. Also the mainpage nearly fits on one screen, which is nice, unlike WP and CP were you have to scroll down to so 60%+ of it. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Yes, I always did like that about our main page. The Main Page is what we present to outsiders—no need to load it down with unnecessary material; keep it short and sweet. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Against. DogP 17:36, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

New articles

Should we trumpet selected new articles on the main page?
Yes

No _and marmite (Cover story covers it)

• ħuman (as at Toast, also, "new" articles, no matter how good they are, usually need work to be cover stories)
• not neededMei 19:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Against —per Huw above. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Against DogP 17:38, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Indifferent

• How long do you keep a new article thingy up there? Nah... Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 20:01, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Nx's fade-effect on cover stories

I Like it

• --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 14:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

• Totnesmartin 15:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT) iz teh sufficiently advanced technology magic.
• Mei 19:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I Don't like it _and marmite (Sorry, Nx)

• Against - it really "adds" nothing. Let's try getting that "onlyinclude" thing working that I mentioned way up above first, to actively select exactly what gets quoted from the coverstories. ħuman 19:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

How about my suggestion up there, with the lead section or if there's no lead section, the section named "cover" being included? --  Nx/talk  19:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I see no reason why we can't just use onlyinclude and pick exactly how much text we want from each article... ħuman 19:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Do you want to use onlyinclude with the dpl character limit, or rely solely on onlyinclude? The advantage of my method is that it works on most articles without modifications, since it uses the lead section. --  Nx/talk  07:53, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

It doesn't work on my computer

• I see nothing fading.--Bob^{bing up} 14:51, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

not installed yet ^{— Unsigned, by: ConservapediaUndergroundResistor / talk / contribs}

This point is kinda moot, since it's done in a stupid way which won't work with all browsers. I'll try to do it in a more elegant way, however dpl is borking for some of the articles and leaving off closing tags, messing up the whole page. If you have Firefox 3 or Opera 9.5, it should work. If it doesn't, try ctrl-r. --  Nx/talk  15:02, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Works for me. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 15:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

• AgainstDogP 17:38, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Hey! I ordered a cheeseburger!

• Kan haz? ħuman
• Right on. As long as they are not cheese goatburgers. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 20:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• Goat-cheeseburgers would be nice, so long as it wasn't feta. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
• wantz--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 17:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

WP Plagiarism!

I`ve just found a half-assed website that ｃａｌｌｓ　ｉｔｓｅｌｆ　ａｎ　ｅｎｃｙｃｌｏｐｅｄｉａ - all of it`s articles are plagiarised![1] -- 忍者  ^{N I N J A A A H ! ! ! ! !} 17:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT) [{{subst:Unsigned|Ninja}} (this makes no sense - ħuman)]

It links to and acknowledges Wikipedia and the GFDL at the bottom of each article. AFAIK that is compliant. Taytopacket 14:24, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

meh. There's a ton of WP mirror sites on the innerwebzez. Totnesmartin 15:47, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

There's a lot of "fan-wikis" that basically say that the easiest way to expand is to copy and paste from WP because they're under the same liscence. It makes sense, but only if in the process they get rid of all the "in universe" style stuff from WP in the process. ArmondikoV^gnostic 14:34, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

WIGO WND?

Should we make a special WIGo category for WND since we made one for aSK? Also, should we add the 4th Reich WIGO to the template, or are we not even bothering with neo-nazis anymore? ENorman 17:33, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

RE: 4r, I think we decided to nuke it for two reasons - one, nothing is GO there, and two, having anything high profile linking to anything like MP was turning a lot of stomachs. As far as WIGO WND, is it turning up a lot on WIGO clogs or world? It would be easy to build, all we need to do is edit DeanS' CP borken news down to just WND items... they'll do all the work for us! I guess really we could have as many WIGOs as we want, but let's be careful of dilution (I could see ASK ending up in clogs if it gets boring), and not do high profile links if they aren't very active. ħuman 18:50, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

A little help.....

I was wanting to add WIGO aSK here but its a little outta my league. Someone wanna help? Something like "catch up with all the scientific ineptitude at_____". Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:18, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Okay, I clearly dropped off the radar for a week too long, WTF is aSK? ...okay nevermind. I did the obvious thing and put it into search. ArmondikoV^gnostic 14:31, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

We're waiting a little bit (a couple more weeks?) to see if it has "legs". It will eventually go in the AotW main template, that's where that section of the mainpage is stored. ħuman 19:01, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Looking at something other than CP could be interesting. ArmondikoV^gnostic 08:17, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Trouble is, right now it's dying on the vine. All hopes that PJR will do some recruiting and the results will be delightfully fruitful! ħuman 22:39, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

red floaty text thing

Do not want. Totnesmartin 06:12, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

What is? ħuman 22:40, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Ed Rogers Neighborhood

Discusion moved to RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?#Ed Rogers Neighborhood

Awful Popes?

A friend sent me this article by Zack Parsons, detailing the six worst popes to ever ascend to lead the Church.

Now that I think about it, the condom flap isn't that bad. [/sarcasm] == CodyH 18:54, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Fundies say the darndest things

Could someone add this http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1 to rationalwiki, top 100 of fundamendal quotes: one denying suns existance and so on...great stuff

"If you mean that men have ever been animals you are 100 percent wrong. No evidence under the sun can prove that I was ever my pet cat. ET can happen within a species but not between species."

I'm reasonably sure a lot of those are parody. Just something about the way they're said looks fake. Totnesmartin 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugler has at least one, as does my most valuable sock of ETrundel. So there's probably quite a few parodist statements. EddyP 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

thats the saddest thing, they really said that, ive seen those in few pages and theres citations, RIP rationality

Disclosure of Personal Information

Moved to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards#Disclosure_of_Personal_Information

It's no more than they deserve - Caution! Contains goats!

It's one of those rare moments when I think that there just might be a god![2] ^{— Unsigned, by: Mick McT / talk / contribs}

Two years on...

This amazing discussion has been moved to the bar down the road

Fun and Recipes

Should the link "Fun" and the link "Recipes" on the main page goes to namespaces instead of "Page starting with"? (it was fixed in the Category page) Thieh 14:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks --  Nx/talk  14:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote generator as one of the cover templates?

Should we have a place on the front page to put perhaps a combined quote generator, a grand combination of Kenquote, Assquote and Swabquote? Thieh 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

{{template:cpquote}} is up. Thieh 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. What purpose would it serve other than to make a mess? ħuman 01:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Way too in joke for the main page. - π 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the irrational number. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

buttons

Hey, paste these into your this and you'll get more buttons. I just had to write in a ref by hand )= Tarantallegra 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1) If you type fast enough, it is quicker to type it by hand than stopping to click a button. 2) Look below the edit screen, it is down in the markup box. - π 05:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You can also put it here to get the same effect -- Nx / talk 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I'll do that. But it would be nicer just to have it. When are you going to get a WYSIWYG editor? Tarantallegra 05:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WYSIWYG is for wimps. Now excuses me I some texing to do. - π 05:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We have WikEd which is almost WYSIWYG. Look in the gadgets tab of preferences -- Nx / talk 05:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well you're going to get that a lot since wikia went to it (; I help out on several wikis, and I happen to know it would take you about 10 min to annoy the hell out of all the non-wimps. But I understand if you don't want to do it, 'cause it's sooo horrid to see that little editor link looking at you round that bathroom door when you're just trying to edit some source in peace. Nice template sig.... cool. Tarantallegra 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WikEd is nice and I keep it on (albeit disabled by default) for search and replace mainly, but the loading time can be horrible, and it can screw up the code, especially when you copypaste. All the other WYSIWYG editors I know of are mediawiki extensions and experimental/beta, so I don't want to mess with that. -- Nx / talk 06:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, FCK is not really completely worked out, but I guess if wikia is using it then it can't be too terrible. It's getting pretty good except it ruins comoplex code and you can't easily edit inside of templates on the page. I can see where you'd not want to bother. Tarantallegra 08:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is going on?

Right now all I am seeing is "there is no text on this page." MIP has actually signed in - 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Restoring lost edit. All better now. ħuman 04:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I tried to reply just as TMT locked the Database. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 04:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GFDL to CC-BY-SA

GFDL and CC-by-sa 3.0

Hi! The community here should be aware that Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have voted to switch licenses to Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 from the GFDL. This is possible because contributions are licensed under "GFDL 1.2 or later versions", and the GFDL 1.3 has a provision to allow wiki projects to switch to Creative Commons. However, according to the terms of the GFDL 1.3, switching licenses is only possible if done before August 1, 2009.

Because Wikipedia is changing licenses, it will no longer be possible to move content to and from Wikipedia (without violating the licenses) unless this project also changes over to CC-by-sa. I don't know whether that is a possibility, since it appears that your content is GFDL 1.2 only, not "GFDL 1.2 or later versions" like on Wikipedia. However, you might have some wiggle room since all your links to the license just point to the current GFDL at gnu.org, which is now version 1.3. In any case, your community should be aware that if it doesn't switch to CC-by-sa, importing Wikipedia content will not be legal

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach for more information.

Thank you for the information, we are currently discussing the switch on site at Debate:Should RationalWiki switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0?. I think the language that it would be illegal to use Wikipedia content is a bit strong. CC-BY-SA provides for licensing under "similar licenses." tmtoulouse 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

True. I guess what I meant was that Wikipedia would not be able to use your content if it was only GFDL ^{— Unsigned, by: 161.184.204.26 / talk / contribs}

There's a bit of a difference between those two statements, isn't there? I doubt they'd actually want to use our content at WP anyway. Anyway, the only thing I copy from wikipedia are commas. Lots of them. ħuman 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeeves Mark 2 AKA coward

Jeeves has basically been waiting on the sideline for months to have a legitimate reason to throw me in the vandal bin. Jeeves - Go fuck yourself you PRICK. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think even you would agree you're usually just an asshole, not a vandal, so I'm not sure what you think he was waiting for because your recent behavior seems new-ish to me. So did Jeeves get a legit collar or not? You know you're likely to get out of the vandal bin as soon as whatever has you acting out the last few days passes. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If he has a "legitimate reason" to throw you in the bin, then what's the problem? --Kels (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be in the vandal bin, than quit trolling and do something useful. Do this at least once in a while, and then maybe you'll have a reason to complain. Otherwise, shut up.The Goonie 1 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well. I'm sure your buddies at your secret laughing at RW forum, and your girlfriend who goes to another school will comfort you in your hour of need. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't rise to it dude, this is what they all want. The bad thing with the vandal bin reducing the rate that people can edit at, is that it means they have to think very carefully about how much annoying, offensive and provoking shit they can cram into just one edit. ^{d hominem} 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a bad thing? One of the big problems with MC is that he's boring. A few single edits that focus on quality would be a big improvement, even if they're quality insults --Kels (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(new section left by MC's brother (?) moved to user talk:MarcusCicero)

Wow. ħuman 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Grow up and get jobs

Some of these anti-intellectual vandals and trolls were having some fun at your expense, Richard. If you've gotten wind of it, or hear of it at some point, pay it no mind. Mainly just a group of malcontented trolls who frequent several sites, and of course the usual gang of young teen vandals all too common to the Internet. --₮K/Admin/Talk 20:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

       thanks--yes they do get under my skin  :) RJJensen 21:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT) 

Just an excerpt from Richard Jensen's talk page. You people are fools and little kiddies with nothing better to do with your time and your lives. Grow the fuck up and stop harassing another website for no fucking reason (other than your perceived intellectual superiority). Or else spend your time on 4Chan. Because you people are completely pathetic. You are vandals and fucking trolls who need to get girlfriends and who need to get a fucking life. MarcusCicero (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't feed the troll, but what the hell? It's the weekend and I'm up early... So MC, tell us, do you take an aggressive posture online to cover your own real life insecurities? OR are you just a prick? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 15:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have a job and a life. I'm a prick when it comes to dealing with people who in my opinion barely deserve to be called human beings MarcusCicero (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Beat me too it, SirChuck. I have to laugh at how he chuggs down TK's coolaid and assumes that everything bad that happens on CP (that isn't caused by Andy or TK, of course) comes from us. Hopefully, MC also vents his spleen on EBaumsworld, 4chan (although I doubt he gets past the /y/ channel), ED, UC, etc., etc. and every other site out there that points at his beloved "encyclopaedia" and laughs. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, even though it's the weekend, I still wouldn't feed the troll. Trolls are obnoxious.The Goonie 1 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to sum up, MC feels that we complain too much on the internets, and his solution is to complain on the internets. Z3ro^talk 15:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Go figure. Gotta love hypocrisyThe Goonie 1 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So MC, you have a job, and a life. Yet every three weeks or so your surface around here to bitch and moan..... Maybe your boss should give you more to do..... By the way, you're so brave that when someone responded to your posting, you tried to burn it... Way to take a stand on your convictions... You really are a sad little man MC, a sad little man. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 15:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to have a job right now, but the way the economy here is right at the moment, hardly anyone's hiring temps over the summer so I've had no luck. Seriously, the market for temporary clerical work is total crap right now. As far as growing up, I'm going to school to learn how to make cartoons and draw comic books for a living. Growing up is not really a required job skill. --Kels (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as getting jobs goes (for me), I probably have a cooler job than Marcus Cicero does. In fact, I guarantee that he wishes he got to do/see some of the cool things I get to with my (low level) security clearance. As far as growing up, I don't wanna grow up, I'm a Toys-R-Us kid!!!!The Goonie 1 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, interestingly, I have a job (a pretty damn good one) and a girlfriend/fiancee. I've never vandalised Conservapedia (I will admit to one or two accounts that added some wierd stuff, but it was stuff that they by and large agreed with). I assume it wasn't addressed to me, then. Never mind. But still, seriously, why do these people blame Rational Wiki when the actual majority of real "trolls and vandals" (as opposed to those who were just out to challenge Andy and Co.'s more bizarre beliefs and therefore labelled as such) operate out of 4Chan, Encyclopaedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia and more where they genuinely are little kids with nothing better to do. ^{d hominem} 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

...

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Flare^Talk 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Flare, would you piss off with posting these everywhere? It's getting annoying. --Kels (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, knock it off NF, please. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially since this arguement was over and done with and MC was gone when that was put up.The Goonie 1 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

HAHAHA!!! That was pretty funny Z3ro!The Goonie 1 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I try. Z3ro^talk 17:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, alright, no more template, but stop giving me reasons to use it. Flare^Talk 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Who needs stopsigns when humor will suffice?!The Goonie 1 (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Who needs stopsigns WHEN THE CONVERSATION HAS GONE OFF ONTO SOMETHING NON-CONTROVERSIAL? Seriously Flare, did you read beyond the first comment? --Kels (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

Can we please end this whole stopsign arguement? Otherwise, it might create the need for one, and that would be self-defeating, wouldn't it?The Goonie 1 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a template that basically says "SHTOP! This Flame War isn't ready yet! Where are the accusations of being a Nazi? Where is the uncensored F-word? Why are you acutally being civil?" (okay, so if you haven't seen the advert, it will be lost on you). ^{d hominem} 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This really doesn't belong on the main page... Perhaps we should move this to the bar where we can continue over drinks. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye. At what point? Just the quote-astic bit below or cut it from futher up? ^{d hominem} 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, hitler thought the same exact way. Web (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Convienient edit for the nonsense section

Did Somebody Say Penguin? You're Welcome

OH OH OH, Now that we've made MC looks stupid are we just dropping random out of context quotations? I'll go next, I'll go next:

“”It was a pleasant café, warm and clean and friendly, and I hung up my old waterproof on the coat rack to dry and put my worn and weathered felt hat on the rack above the bench and ordered a café au lait. The waiter brought it and I took out a notebook from the pocket of the coat and a pencil and started to write. .

—Ernest Hemingway

SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My turn! Here's a favourite:

“”...I really didn't understand what he meant by 'anatomy.' So Ralph handed me an anatomy book and when I went home that night I had decided to learn anatomy. I started with page one and copied the entire book–everything, in one night, from the skeleton up. I came back the next day like a dumb kid and said, "Thank you very much, I just learned my anatomy ...

—Frank Frazetta

--Kels (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

“”We've had game-shows based on bingo, game-shows based on roulette and we've had game-shows based on 'The Wicker Man' but never, have we had a game-show based on the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics... until now.

—Charlie Brooker describing Deal or No Deal

I think this is about as irrelevant as you can get.... perhaps. Penguin. ^{d hominem} 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I can go one better.

“”There's an old phrase that goes something like this: "Let's talk turkey." I don't know what it means, but if it means getting down underneath it all back to where it began and outlining the underlying thematic/post-thematic accentuations re: Nietzschean subversive transgression in terms of pre-theorized transgressive subversion, then let's not do that. Instead, I'd like to discuss the whole concept of "speedy punk rock."

—Mark Prindle

The electrocutioner (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Protecting my brother from ridicule

I just want to protect my brother from ridicule. Please help me remove these troublesome edits. After I remove these main page talk edits I will disappear. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're free to leave, but you won't be removing any talk page edits. Just wait a few days and they'll be automagically archived anyway... ħuman 23:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Another last post? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry :(

The events of the last couple of days were bizarre, even by my standards. What do I have to do to loose the troublesome classification of 'troll'? ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

I'm not sure that's possible--I'm tempted to do it myself (as you haven't threatened to ass-rape anyone like Fall Down nor are you CUR-like in your behaviour), but it would seem as though consensus is against that course of action. Most of what you did/said was on talk pages, and was obnoxious, sure, but so what? The mob seems to have decided to keep you binned for now, and while there may be arguments that that is unfair, it seems to be the way things will stay for the next little while--even though it means we're treating you worse than we treat TK. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except we are not, TK isn't binned because he is not actively editing the cite. TK was blocked permanently for the kind of trolling MC did. Hell, I 404 blocked TK from even accessing the site. Take a break from the wiki MC, that is your best bet, at least for a few days. tmtoulouse 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And, when you return, try not adding posts which say that you're masturbating over other editors - really. Silver Sloth (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem in taking a long break - if you look at my editing patter I'm only ever active for a few days at a time before disappearing - but I don't want the vandal bin hanging over me whatever time I decide to wander back. And I also dislike being labelled a troll. I'm somewhat troublesome, but surely you need someone to point out the holes in your ego?

And you have got to admit - you people calling anyone a troll considering your WIGO entries is priceless irony and hypocrisy. MarcusCicero (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that we are actually not all the same person? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally not a troll. For real. Not a single post in the past few days one could consider trolling in any way. --Kels (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

totally troll. How do you expect to lose the troll label if you sign on, get abusive, then pretend to be someone else who also gets abusive while making up some story about MC having a mental illness? Definite trolling but also totally childish, stupid, boring and idiotic. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 20:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've really no idea what you all are talking about and have only decided to post because I want to call someone a "wanker" and this seems like as good a place as any to find that person. So which one of you is it? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Me! I have never had the pleasure of having that expletive tossed at me. tmtoulouse 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New to Wiki: Like the title says I am new to wiki, well writing anyways... Could somebody help. I sound like idiot I know, but the only way to learn... ^{— Unsigned, by: Hanson135 / talk / contribs}

I left some random thoughts on your talk page, I hope they help. ħuman 04:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

10 top pages of wikipedia and conservapedia

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=22812846 watch it, wou wont be surprised homosexuality is first, homosexuality and parasites is the second homosexuality and violence 3. and so on and so on, whats wrong with fundies, they must be quite kinky ppl 91.153.59.106 07:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is for discussing the mainpage, Conservapedia talk belong over at Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?. If you posted it there you would have been told two things. That list is more than 18 months old, and someone may have pointed out it was our page bump operation that created it. Please don't be put off by our apathy though. Why not get an account after you have lurked for a bit. - π 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection???

I notice Emperor protected Template:RationalWiki MainPage/About and Template:AOTW Main and I don't see why. Checking their histories shows roughly one act of heinous wanadlism per month or so (if even that). ħuman 01:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just released them. Not really necessary. It is not like the mainpage which was getting blanked every day. Do we want to try unprotecting it again? - π 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just figured that the templates posted on the main page ought to at least be uneditable by IP's. After all, the Main Page itself is protected, so why shouldn't its components be protected? It just seemed to make more sense that way. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Someone added a picture to the top of herbal supplement without no including it so it appeared on the front page. It actually looked kind of nice, except that it was a generic field of flowers so looked a little bit on the cheap side. If there is an appropriate on the top of a cover story article should we allow it to be included on the mainpage if it looks nice? - π 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the picture and I actually liked it enough to think that we should try and do it for most of our cover stories. tmtoulouse 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it back then. Do you really want a picture of Schlafly when you came to the main page? - π 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Better undo my edit, I noincluded it again, Ken. Oh, but see my edit comment - we should make a "coverstorytest" template or some such that can be forced to transclude whatever we are testing, then edit the main page, change cs to cstest and use preview to make sure things play nicely. And, yeah, it were sum purdy pikcher. It luked nais. ħuman 03:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you guys actually look at the main page? ħuman 03:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to have one of those in my sandbox until I deleted it. - π 03:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If we cut down on the "more featured content" box, we'd have more than enough room to expand the featured articles. WP's featured stuff often has pictures. ^{d hominem} 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I managed to refresh it enough times to get herbal supplement up. I like it. Although I reckon it would be best off left-aligned rather than right, I assume just sticking "|left" in the includeonly tags would do that fine. It's also a little large on 1024px resolution. ^{d hominem} 10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See this is what I am talking about. How horrible is that? - π 11:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You do make a point, I like the illustrations there but that one would give kids the fright of their lives. ^{d hominem} 11:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you reckon we should drop the thumb when it is included? - π 11:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side it might piss TK off. - π 11:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture is too big, too Kennish. A small image more in line with the size WP uses would be better. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried dropping the thumb like with WP's featured article (that's the test 2 edit) and it didn't look anywhere near as good as I thought it would be. I didn't screengrab it though. ^{d hominem} 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably no bigger than 200px on the mainpage, I think. We need to test these somewhere. - π 11:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks better. - π 11:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 5 billion)As much as I totally love dicking about with this site, yes, testing would be better. I've set the evolution ones to 140px, it's looking good at the screen resolution I'm working at too. ^{d hominem} 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

/Testing area

Better to have straight images without the thumb box. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WIGO aSK

I'm not sure this really should still be on the main page, there's really nothing going on there these days. ħuman 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be rotated with something like WikiSynergy - do we need to start another WIGO for that?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been pretty interesting lately and I am about to get blocked for not retracting my statement after calling Jonathan Sarfati a "moron". Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly front page material though, a wiki-based blogopedia more obscure than CP. - π 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes at Pi, my thoughts exactly. Maybe it should even be folded into wigo clogs... And as far as WS (wikisynergy), um, right now "recent changes" three editors - billy shears, me, and wikademia, discussing meta-meta-policy and stuff mostly. Although it could explode at any day. ħuman 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Ace, you could at least have given Philip a choice. After all, Safarti might not be a moron, he might be a liar! --Kels (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "uneducated twit"? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, either he totally misunderstands evolution even though the information out there is easily found (moron) or he deliberately misrepresents it even though he knows it's not true (liar). I think your suggestion comes under the former. --Kels (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to point it out, but WIGO ask is more popular than WIGO blog. On the other hand, with Bradley not present, it does seem to be a WIGOing of people here, and, well, Philip, which does seem gratuitous. Sterile Gay Bowel Syndrome 00:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like CP when it was interesting, really. --Kels (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is fun at times, although I know some people are getting bored of it.... Sterile Gay Bowel Syndrome 00:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am enjoying it at the moment. The only problem is I am rubbish at online debating. In real life I am good debater but I take my cues etc from gestures and expressions so is difficult for me via the web. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sticking your fingers up and waving your genitals around, that kind of thing? Jaxe (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

srry, wasn't able to access for a week or so, but...

About a week and a half ago, I wasn't able to access this wiki until today, getting the "time out" error until today. I thought it was my computer's problem so I used the other computers at home and got the same error. I tried using the campus's computers and my college apartment's computers and got the same result. When I checked the WIGOs, all of them are messed up (with the exception of the Blogosphere area). What on earth happened?--Dark Paladin X (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

here. tmtoulouse 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

favicon

She is small, but she is borken, captain! ħuman 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

". . . originally wicked . . . They will not reflect that circumstances changed them . . . At home these men had no cause to show their natural savagery . . . they were suddenly transplanted to Africa and its miseries. They were deprived of butcher’s meat & bread & wine, books, newspapers, the society & influence of their friends. Fever seized them, wrecked minds and bodies . . . until they became but shadows, morally & physically of what they had been in English society . . . Home people if they desire to judge fairly must think of all this."

--Henry Morgan Stanley

State of North Dakota v Mimsy Butterpie the Unicorn, December 30 1939, The Right Honorable Judge Daniel Mooncake Presiding. 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's back!

Yay Wehpudicabok 07:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason that foreign aid isn’t working isn’t just because Third World leaders are often corrupt (though, obviously, that doesn’t help matters). The reason foreign aid isn’t working is because Western leaders use foreign aid as a foreign policy “carrot” to get what they want from other leaders instead of just sending it to where it’s needed most. So, even though America spends a lot of money on foreign aid, a good deal of that money is spent on countries like Egypt or Israel or Peru that don’t really need aid as much as some ultra-poor countries do. It’s not just that the money is being used inefficiently; it’s that its suppliers are distributing it inefficiently. Oh, and incidentally, they don’t make too much in the way of “sacrifices” to send that aid, either. Don’t believe me? Well, let’s take a look at the stats. The U.S. spends around $40 billion on foreign aid per year. Let’s see how much money the U.S. spends annually on defense—OH SNAP $515 BILLION!!! Still think that the first world couldn’t do more if it tried a bit harder? State of North Dakota v Mimsy Butterpie the Unicorn, December 30 1939, The Right Honorable Judge Daniel Mooncake Presiding. 08:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a creationist and what is this?

This discussion was moved to [[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?#I'm a creationist and what is this?|Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?#I'm a creationist and what is this?]].12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Theemperor the Whinge bag

It seems Theemperor has taken my digs a little too much to heart. Why the hell is he even kept here? He reverts edits, protects pages, generally acts the right little internet fascist. He reminds me of RA, but much easier to wind up. Get rid of him if you know whats good for you. MarcusCicero 17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Because he is a regularly contributor and we are a broad church. - π 03:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But if we get rid of Theemperor, there won't be anyone here left for me to have a power struggle with.The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 04:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Kept here"? You are "kept here", in spite of the fact that you never say anything useful, you just parade random accusations and when asked, have no "diffs" to provide. We are all "kept here". What procedure do you suggest? That we somehow kick the Emperor Penguin off our ice flow? And then what? ħuman 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

LIFEBOAT RULES! ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Eat the women and children first? ħuman 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Samhain

Nice pumpkin pics every time I check recent changes, but... isn't Hallowe'en/Samhain tomorrow night? Fox 13:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends where you are. - π 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, it already is to to tomorrow in Aus and NZ, see?

I believe it switches date at GMT (UTC) + and - 12 hours to allow for the Antipodeans and Hawaiians among us? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 13:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, all of our holydaze templates run a full 48 hours so they display for the entire day wherever you are. It would be cooler to interact with the user's IP or timezone setting, but I don't think that was do-able. ħuman 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. (But Samhain is April 30 for Aussies and New Zealanders.) Fox 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that Walpurgisnacht? (memories from 50+ years ago - probably wrong) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 13:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's in the spring. --Kels 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:Walpurgis Night April 30th. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is April considered spring in the southern hemisphere? Seems odd that they would have seasonal festivals exactly the same as those in the northern hemisphere, rather than reversing them. Fox 14:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's (Samhain) Celtic so (presumably) relies more on its cultural heritage than fact. Really, I dunno - an Antipodean'll have to tell us. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that Samhain is 30 Oct-1 Nov in the Northern hemisphere and April 30-1 May in the Southern. Since it's a Celtic holiday, I'd be inclined to go with the former for a worldwide wiki. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Just had visions of Santa on the beach and so on. I'm glad I don't live down there. I was once in the Falklands during June, and on their winter solstice/our summer solstice they celebrate Fixmas. Weird. Fox 14:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover Stories

I think we need to find more cover story candidates. I am sure I only ever see one of maybe 4 or 5 when ever I visit. Ace^{of Spades} 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I only look at the main page when someone says something is borken on it. ħuman 01:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New color scheme?

Not sure this was that great an idea. Did we discuss doing this somewhere that I missed? ħuman 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Weaseloid suggested it on the logo brainstorm page. I like the idea, but the colors are too ... colorful. Perhaps it should be a bit more subdued, and only vary slightly from the current fixed colors -- Nx / talk 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about background colors there, maybe I missed that part. I don't think we want the main page color scheme slowly changing over time for no explicable reason. Also, if we do decide to do it, the supporting template should be in the RW space, not userspace, I think. ħuman 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Background can't be done. -- Nx / talk 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it. It's nice to have these unexpected minor tweaks once in a while. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a slight colour change everyday over a year. I would prefer pastel colours and a sandbox version first. - π 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did discuss it first, including the suggestion that it be used on main page. Since there was very little feedback & the discussion petered out, I went ahead with it, in the hope of getting some less apathetic response here. If it isn't popular on the maybe it could be used on some of the box templates (welcome, delete, mission, etc.) instead (or as well?). Re the namespace, I'm happy to move it out of my userspace & will do so this weekend. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

It has been protected again, can someone undo it? - π 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. ħuman 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Stupid use of site messages is stupid.

I get that the RationalWiki social scene has always been rough and tumble, but why are users now being abused over the intercom? Don't spread the bickering as far and as wide as possible. IMHO.

Anyways, and why is it visible to unregistered users? I was not logged in and saw it. There are at least a few articles around that try to be serious, and such a message is shooting RW in the foot. Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, one more place for this shit to take place! - π 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's visible to anons because the site-wide urgent group is designed that way. A bureaucrat can hide it. -- Nx / talk 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did, incidentally. ^{d hominem} 09:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, cool, how did you do that? ħuman 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all on the Intercom page. ^{d hominem} 14:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is? All I see are the last 50 messages... maybe I'm not looking carefully enough. Or maybe I'm not a 'crat? S'possible, I haven't tried to do any 'cratting chores lately... ħuman 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a "⧼intercom-pager-cancellink⧽" link on Special:Intercom for messages sent to the urgent group. I think the link disappears once you hide them. -- Nx / talk 07:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, of course, doh and thanks! ħuman 21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia has a page on Vicipaedia

[3] In case anyone here is interested. --70.29.37.90 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First TVTropes, now this... Totnesmartin (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed ...

...('cause I don't look @ the Main Page often) ... whoever did the layout did a good job - I love how the two columns are the same height at whatever width you move the page. CP could learn from that. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti Earthquake

Please, please feel free to improve the rather rushed addition. And feel free to remove it in due course. Bob Soles (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

my sysopship

where's my sysopship, dudes? YourEnemy? (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you do something and we might care enough to give you one. - π 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Invisible wiki

Rational wiki pages #never# appear in the first batch of a webspider search. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

And? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, now no one will ever find this place! Thank you, unsigned numbers, we'll close RationalWiki immediately. (Thankfully, Ken

's idea of legitimacy only works for nutters, not for rational people) --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam backwards is mapS. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also an anagram for ampS. 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Keep 'em coming. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rationally RW is perceived as irrelevant - however much you ham it up. And spam backwards is mɒqs. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

Who cares? And please sign your posts, like this: ~~~~ Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"perceived as irrelevant" is an anagram of "real deviancies pervert" --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the redirect to Anagramwiki? ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

Beware the Earwigs that eat Irrelevant Articles. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

BON's claim isn't even true... ħuman 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is not to describe the situation but to change it.

There is a spectre haunting Wikiland - and it is not Rationalwiki.

What is BON? ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.7 / talk / contribs}

Bunchanumbers - somebody who hasn't signed in, like you. Or me for short. Bondurant (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Or this. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not allow continued reworkings of Marx's aphorisms? ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

This wiki should be made more useful than a sonic screwdriver in an anechoic chamber. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.3 / talk / contribs}

Still almost invisible (one entry, a number of pages down): and many articles seem to have had the sentences linking them to RW's premises to debunk 'theories mad, bad, weird, incorrigibly stupid or just plain sky-clad quirky' removed/allowed to go down the plughole. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.70 / talk / contribs} 17:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do you think that this should be of interest to us? 17:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

The definition of what RW #should# be? Or that RW articles appear to have no connection to the mission statement?. Or is it the intent that nobody else look in the RW fishbowl? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Article of the weak

The Earwigs of Indifference want a new one. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs}

They still want a new one.

As do the Ants of the Apocalypse.

Sophia

likes you, unless you have potato blight. ^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:|User:]] / [[User talk:|talk]] / contribs}

Cool. Is she pretty? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sophia is the subject of many worshipful haiku. Sophia is also the name of the tuber mascot of the Uncyclopedia.^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.5 / talk / contribs}

Rationalwiki:

Difficult haiku

Somewhat irrelevant^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs}

What about Mary Sue? (look her up on the web). ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.17.10 / talk / contribs} 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny interaction at Conservapedia

This discussion was moved to [[Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#Some_everyday_shit_at_Conservapedia|Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#Some_everyday_shit_at_Conservapedia]].23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What Rational Wiki needs

Is more surrealism and irony.

Beware brainwormholes. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs} 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock TehKlown , the ironic surrealist! Alain (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy and Conservapedia

How could the principles of homeopathy ('like cures like') be used on Conservapedia? (This is semi-humorous) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Trent's ability to restore view counts?

He's done it once or twice before. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. He's not been onsite for the last couple of weeks or so. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Months? Years? ħuman 03:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He's probably on a beach somewhere with Colin. Šţěŗĭļė Gay Bowel Syndrome 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)