Talk:Main Page/Archive8

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, (new)(back)

We're vibrant[edit]

See here! VirileSterileyawn! 11:34, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Ahahahahaha, check out who started the Conservapedia entry! *rolling on floor, laughing at the irony* --Sid 11:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

A HUGE victory[edit]

I must say, the disabling of new account creation at Conservapedia is one of the greatest victories we have ever experienced. This will serve to destroy what little credibility they still enjoy and prevent any potentially good editors from registering. Allow me to send a heartfelt thank-you to Mr. Andrew Schlafly on behalf of the RationalWiki mob. Without his rampant paranoia, this victory would not have been possible.


I Eat Glue 14:21, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Excelent. Their vandalism levels will decrease of course but this as the begining of the end.- Icewedge 14:29, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
And I still have a single sleeper sock left on the inside ... heheheh. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I have several sleeper socks. But, wait, do we know if this change is permanent? - Icewedge 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Who cares? If it isn't, then we can replenish our supplies. If it is, then it will be our last stand. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I'm confused. I thought that they turned account creation on on off at various times. Why do we think this is permanent?--Bob's your uncle 14:42, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah. I was not aware of that. I Eat Glue 14:44, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

This brings to mind many pieces of wisdom, but I have to voice some concern. Are we going to feel unfulfilled now? Here's what's been rattling in my mind:
  • "Good and Evil, there never can be one without the other."
  • "Wanting is often far more pleasing a thing than having."
I'll admit that part of me wants this to be temporary. On the other hand, Conservapedia isn't the only force for the evil anti-science political agenda. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. --Edgerunner76 14:44, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I would venture to say that at least half of the entries at "according to" could become articles on RW if we ever get bored. humanUser talk:Human 17:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

We could always terrorize Citizendium or CreationWiki. I Eat Glue 14:49, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, CreationWiki has already diabled new account creation (more-or-less). You need to go through a whole loyalty test peer-review (as much as that phrase could apply to CW) thingy to get a CreationWiki account. --Edgerunner76 14:52, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
It looks like they've done it permanently because they haven't just turned off the account creation button - which they normally do, yes, I admit. Instead, they've actually posted something new. I don't know what that is. That has the ring of permanence to it, doesn't it? I think it's step 1 towards making CP a less productive, more insane, less gentle, and more hilarious version of CreationWiki. Also, I do indeed thing targeting CW next would be good.-αmεσ (ninja) 14:52, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Why Citizendium? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:56, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

No particular reason, I just picked the first site name I could remember. I Eat Glue 14:58, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I think that's (you gotta log in) been there since forever - I've seen it previously I'm sure. Just the normal - no one on guard - door shut - no excitement. Susantalk to me 15:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
You sure? That second link is scary.-αmεσ (ninja) 15:12, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Not certain but give it a day - let em run through a cycle of close/open & see what pans out. Susantalk to me 15:22, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Um, hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so. Susantalk to me 20:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

So what is the new strategy? I guess we might be able to get a few "I turned my friend on to CP, but he says that he can't create an account. What should he do?" things with our socks to create at least a few other socks. --Edgerunner76 15:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

On their "recent changes" there seems to have been a new user "Ouzo" created (and banned) in the last ten minutes.--Bob's your uncle 15:31, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
The log (at least now) says 28 June for Ouzo's creation. VirileSterileyawn! 16:26, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Think they are going to have same kind of registeration thingy that there is in creationwiki, so i bet soon enough one can make new accounts alltho it will be bit more troublesome. So instead of direct vandalism, i think delecate trolling is the way to go, still have 3 socks there myself, so im entertained untill the registeration opens again in form or another. TimoT 17:57, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I've requested an account at CreationWiki - wish me luck!-αmεσ (ninja) 18:29, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I personally don't feel like vandalizing other sites. Sure Creationwiki is a horrible promoter of pseudoscience, but they have not demonstrated the same extreme level of idiocy as Conservapedia. - Icewedge 19:16, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so I got an account there! Their vetting system is apparently more lax than they would let on. I don't intend vandalism/wandalism; rather I'm going to try to promote our views/site and debate them. Would other ppl like to join?-αmεσ (ninja) 22:58, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I would love to see an attempt at intelligent discussion to see how open-minded they are befor we start wandalizing them. It would let us see whether or not they even deserve to be wandalized. - Signed I Eat Glue 20:29, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting article[edit]

Hey guys! I'm an admirer of what you do here, and have had many laughs at the expense of Conservapedia. Bearing in mind the recent school shooting and how they've used it to try and leverage their own view, I couldn't help but post here after finding an article that many there will likely find wickedly pointed if posted there and in complete contrast to their logic. Basically, a 14 year old kid was found to have solicited help for a planned school shooting as well as stockpiling a cache of weapons that included swords, knives, a 9mm assault rifle, and four hand grenades. This kid was home schooled and the story is brought to us by none other than Fox News. If anyone still has a working membership there, please post it, even if only to elicit a reaction from them. Story is Here -- 19:56, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Mmm. Someone's posted it somewhere - must get my searchy thing (brain!) working. Susantalk to me 20:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

here (brain, she work! (eventually)) Susantalk to me 20:47, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, yeah, see my comment there. humanUser talk:Human 21:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)


Come on guys, at least meet us halfway here.... If you're gonna vandalize, at least do more than remove content from page.... That's like Short Bus Vandalsim SirChuckB 16:06, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


Always Watching...

Should we do something special for Halloween? Such as change the color scheme, et al. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 00:39, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

We're coming over to paint your computer orange and black right now... humanUser talk:Human 06:49, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Hmmmm...maybe someone should go over to CP and post on Andy's page, asking him about doing the same for Halloween. Perhaps he might give us one of his patented "I don't have time for silly posts!" rants. -- --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 15:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
There are obvious things that can be done.VirileSterileyawn! 19:57, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


I love how Fox news just slips in the facts that he's a life long democrat and a secular humanist. They're totally not trying to smear liberals in general. ThunderkatzHo! 22:19, 17 October 2007 (EDT)


Someone take a screenshot this time! Uchiha 13:28, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Happy Birthday World![edit]

6010 years old ... wow! looking good for it's age. Jrssr5 10:02, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

This belongs on According To - just put it there :-)-αmεσ (ninja) 10:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes. Fantastic. Date of creation: Oct 23, 4004 B.C.--Bobbing for apples 10:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
My Equator hurts in the morning (EDT) and I find my spin is a bit more wobbly. -- EarthYour Mother 10:19, 23 October 2007

Hilarious. Anyone else notice how poorly written the stupid article is? The special features looks like it was written by an 8 year old. Among the "special features" of the book are "One of history's most famous and well-respected historians" and "Entered college at age 13"! Wow. DickTurpis 11:03, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

You know we should celebrate this day annually here. The day of the goat or something like that.--Bobbing for apples 11:11, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Also from the same site, I like this article. If, as an atheist, I knew many of these "shocking facts" about the Bible, what does that say about those allegedly Bible reading Christians? DickTurpis 11:14, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I knew most of them, but a couple like this one The Bible talks about "gay" sex with angels? were a bit of a surprise.--Bobbing for apples 11:20, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

We can celebrate each day of creation week! Light and dark day! I can't wait to celebrate the dinosaur creation day! VirileSterileyawn! 11:15, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

My God, what a ripoff! You can get the exact same book on for $20 less. Charlatans. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:18, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

The amazon page is a good read too. According to the first reviewer (probably Joseph Farah himself) "Despite the open mockery of him by evolutionists committed to their own religiously driven view of earth history, Ussher's scholarship remains unassailable and has stood the test of time." Yes, it's unassailable. I guess we shouldn't even try. Also, the WND page says that the book "published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers." Which homeschoolers are these? The ones fluent in Latin? Yeah, there are a lot of those kicking around. DickTurpis 11:30, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I wonder how often CP references WND???-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 11:35, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I like this, from the site describing "the book frequently described as the greatest history book ever written": Although the autumnal equinox is Sept. 21 today, that is only because of historical calendar-juggling to make the years come out right. Ok then. Determining the autumnal equinox is calendar juggling. Good to know. I guess you have to buy the book to see how they determined that.--Bayesupdate 14:45, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
They're referring to the Julian vs. the Gregorian calendars. England at Ussher's time used the Julian, and under that, equinox in 4004 BCE would have been on the October 23. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
Oh! My bad. Do you know the basis, if any, for using the dates of the celebrations around the time of the solstice as Day 1? --Bayesupdate 22:28, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
I can make up an answer - in old agricultural communities, the dwindling day could easily be a cause for worry - and the change, at the solstice, to longer days signalled the eventual coming of the spring and new life. Just imagine if the day kept getting shorter until it disappeared! Plenty cause for celebs there. humanUser talk:Human 22:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
I emailed that page to all the science teachers at the school I work for, and they all found it hilarious.... Of note is the assumption that Julius Ceasar was not kidnapped because he was a wealthy target floating at see (traditionally prime targets for pirates) but because there was some grand conspiracy.... SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:51, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Support for intelligent design[edit]

The motto on the Main Page indirectly supports the main argument of intelligent design. I assume, however, that this is an instance of conscious irony. --Uncle Ed bug me 08:47, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Which motto would that be?--Bobbing for apples 09:43, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
Oh, you mean the one where it begs the question/assumes the answer if it looks designed, it must be designed? Fallacy if I ever heard one. VirileSterileyawn! 10:19, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Right, Sterile. Ed, if you want to debate the merits of the clock analogy - which is what I assume you're drawing from our "intelligently designed wiki" motto - we'd be happy to debate it with you here. We love pwning creationist stuff here. In fact, one might say it's the entire reason for the site.-αmεσ (ninja) 11:56, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

They are generated randomly from a list, but I assume you meant "an intelligently designed wiki"? Because that's just funny and mostly partly true. It doesn't support the pseudoscience of ID in any way. We say RW is ID'd because we know it is - we designed it! Nice try, though. humanUser talk:Human 12:00, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
Note for those who don't know: RationalWiki has a list of the Main Page's randomly appearing slogan located at [1]. Virego 03:22, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

digg CP?[edit]

See here. VirileSterileyawn! 08:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

LOL Jesus riding a dinosaur! 09:00, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

1 million page views[edit]

Anyone notice? Anyone care? Not too shabby. tmtoulouse torment 15:56, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

OSM strikes again! Genghis Khant 17:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Cool... or was that you, GK? He means this - RW just cleared 106 itself. Which is funny, I wuz all watching the stats back around 7E5 or so, before the Great War on Red Links... humanUser talk:Human 19:34, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Book on philosophy of science[edit]

Hello all, I'll be needing a good book discussing the philosophy of science to make a passing reference to in a paper I'm writing. Could any of you recommend a good one? I'll buy you goats.-αmεσ (ninja) 13:10, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

What kind of book? General? Text? Classic? The classics are Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery , Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and I would throw in Quine's Ontological Relativity and Other Essays or some of his other work. There is also some of the social constructionist stuff and post-modern stuff but gag. Is this what you mean? tmtoulouse torment 00:40, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
This one is probably more focussed than what you're looking for in a passing reference (talks about how we should deal philosophically with QM), but it provides a pretty broad perspective on science in Western thought as well, and it's a decent layman's introduction to quantum physics. I'd recommend it for anyone here. Bayesupdate 01:02, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
This bibliography should cover most of your bases. If you're just looking for a general work, both of those listed as "main texts" are recommended. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:37, 31 October 2007 (EDT)


Has anyone else just lost RW for 1/2 an hour? SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 15:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Yea, the apache server went down and I had to do a restart.........these days I am rarely more than 5 feet from my inbox so I urge anyone anytime there is a major problem that needs immediate support to e-mail me at or and I will get on it. tmtoulouse torment 15:21, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

You lovely man! SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 15:26, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I did just that at about 3 pm est... by the way, I like hoji's new nickname for us (made up to get around cp's filter): R Dubya. humanUser talk:Human 17:12, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

wat does the ratinekwiki logo look liek?[edit]

ccccccccc-StupidIdiot 23:37, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

That was a Kenservative-style question, asked in Kenservative style. Now, look to your left.-αmεσ (ninja) 23:42, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
i dont see antyhitng StupidIdiot 23
45, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
It looks like poopies. Look at your poopies in the toilet after you make them. That is our logo. humanUser talk:Human 01:41, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Brains! I eat brains! We like zombies! humanUser talk:Human 01:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)


We have very few, due to some sort of "keep the main space uncluttered" philosophy. But I thinnk there are some that would make article writing easier - we have quite a few "ism" articles, that could be redirected to from the "ist" version of the word. Two examples, dominionism and creationism. What think we about writing the redlinks and redirecting them? humanUser talk:Human 13:41, 5 November 2007 (EST)

RW. INFO[edit]

This is...interesting...PFoster 00:18, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, now speak of it again and you'll never be seen again. --Cyber Terror Cell </Parody>

Wow, Night Train, it looks like you (?) have put alot of work into this! I commend you in that respect. The tone seems almost a little tongue-in-cheek, though... was that intentional?

Anyway, I'm interested to see how this little project continues. If you want help putting it together, you could always make it into a wiki whose goal is to refute/expose RationalWiki. XD

Yes, I know, old joke, but I wanted my shot at it...

Uchiha 00:35, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I am tempted to peal off or from redirecting to this site and turning it into an tmtoulouse torment 00:44, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Oh please do.... Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 00:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)
That would be awesome, yes. A "I hate RW" wiki would make teh innertubes so much more... tubular. In the meantime, I thought it was TK from CP who made But TK is not NT (according to NT). WTF? Am I wrong? Anyway, if it is NightTrain (not equals TK), well, coolz ya dude, by the way, you suck at building websites. humanUser talk:Human 00:51, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Its not him that sucks its Microsoft......publisher is a terrible program. tmtoulouse torment 00:57, 6 November 2007 (EST)
He sucks for choosing it, then. I write my stuff in arachnophilia, pretty much raw html with user-customizable "buttons". Gee, I think it through before posting, basically. I agree, MS sucks, but you are the suckzor if you use their crap to express yourself. humanUser talk:Human 01:11, 6 November 2007 (EST)
The whole place was like a club house for fifteen year olds, except that most members were in their twenties and thirties (some older) and filled with righteous indignation and real hate for those who rejected their idea of the world as they thought it should be.

Now, without looking.... WHICH website is the above quote about? --Gulik 01:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I take offense to the belittling of 15 year-olds. It ain't cool man, not cool at all... *proceeds to sniff more glue* --Ζωροάστρης 01:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Is this a parody of RW by RW, or is it CP's work? -- the.ip.guy/69 Talkroute 02:36, 6 November 2007 (EST)

As far as I am aware it's certainly supposed to be sincere. It is possible however that the author may be striving for a note of self-parody.--Bobbing up 05:33, 6 November 2007 (EST)
I love this part:
But as Conservapedia Admins discovered and joined it (membership was not locked, and anyone could join at that that time) and began copying their threads, The Cabal knew something must be done. On this first version, which you will see on later pages here[...]
Way to showcase that CP Admins weaseled their way into RW1 (deceit, much?) and that "Night Train" magically has access to the information grabbed by those sysops months ago. Gosh, I wonder who this masked stranger is... ;)
Who were those sysops, anyway? My memory says TK, Geo.plrd, and Karajou. Not sure if the list is accurate, though (since I don't know of anybody ever giving an honest answer to that question). --Sid 06:23, 6 November 2007 (EST)

One, he left me out. Don't I get to be a terrorist? Two, where does he get the time?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 08:13, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Sigh, I still, still, still don't understand why I'm a terrorist for putting science in CP's science articles. VirileSterileyawn! 09:25, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Science terrifies them. You tried to inflict science on them, therefore, you are a terrorist. --SockOfGulik 13:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

you are not the internet hate machine

I agree, I spent all this time and money going to Rational Terrorist Training camp and I don't get so much as a middle finger in my direction...::sniff sniff:: Bastard SirChuckBCall the FBI 12:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Er just remember you don't get your money back................. tmtoulouse torment 12:18, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Now that I have learned that I am employed by a terrorist organization, I must repectfully ask the site administrators to give me my freakin' plastic explosives already. I Eat Glue 12:57, 6 November 2007 (EST)

The application procedure for distribution of our armory has not been developed yet. It's still in the, er, beta stages. tmtoulouse torment 13:05, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Here, take this in lieu of your C-4, Pipebomb.jpg
CЯacke® 13:20, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Better than c4 would be a dispersal technology for "crabs". 13:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Hey, am I the only that finds humor in someone putting up a (poorly written, horibly designed) vanity site that stands just to attempt to "expose" us.... We're one of how many thousand Wikis in the world? Maybe this is one of us... SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

As far as I know, we are already exposed (looks down to make sure underwear is still on). I'm not sure how his little project enlightens anyone, but, hey, it's a free interworld. 15:06, 6 November 2007 (EST)


This site should definitly include more opinion sections in the articles, as you can never compete with wikipedia you should try and fill a seperate niche.The LoraxSlackers! 18:15, 6 November 2007 (EST)

yes, i would agree with that! Elassint Throw things at me 18:16, 6 November 2007 (EST)
I filled my niche with ice cubes once, three hours in the emergency room and a lecture from from child prevention specialist (with beer on his breath and soup on his tie) cured me of niche filling. CЯacke® 18:19, 6 November 2007 (EST)
At least ice melts.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)
All I ever add is unsubstantiated opinion, but I hide it in the shadow of the site's well known deceitful liberal bias. humanUser talk:Human 18:49, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Creationist Claim[edit]

I really would like to spend the time lighting fire to the straw men that Paul seems to be using to define his rationality as to why creationism is valid, however I have better things to do today. So I am suggesting that we all help Paul out with why his arguments are off key with some supported evidence and conclusive statements as to the failing of the ideas presented by his arguments.-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 13:57, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Who or what is "Paul", and where is he erecting his strawmen? humanUser talk:Human 13:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Front page, it is his blog, Paul Anderson.-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 14:02, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I'm afraid that I'm still confused. Where again?--Bobbing up 14:03, 7 November 2007 (EST)
What blog? Is it one of the links in "According to"? humanUser talk:Human 14:11, 7 November 2007 (EST)
The top one is a blog of some Ben guy, but it does say FAQ by Paul Anderson. Stirring the ocean...... VirileSterileyawn! 18:57, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Shocked and Infuriated[edit]

Can you beleive this? And she got off with only an apology and a few bucks fine... Sad sad day. SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:50, 7 November 2007 (EST)

That is utterly hideous. You should have put a warning on the link! WARNING: Person hurts goat and doesn't eat it! humanUser talk:Human 14:57, 7 November 2007 (EST)

What do you Think?[edit]

It's not good enough for according to... but do you think this case will be proof of Religious intolerance in America or proof of a Grand Abortion Conspiracy? Maybe a sock could try and slip it in.... SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:56, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Huh? What does that semi-clueless debate page have to do with abortion? humanUser talk:Human 15:11, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Oh Shit, sorry, I've reposted it with the correct link now.... I feel smart... SirChuckBCall the FBI 16:33, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Haha, thanks. That makes so much more sense now... Yeah, that belongs on CP's news dribble. humanUser talk:Human 16:39, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Oh noes! It's teh evil liberals! -All Hail Tuna 01:17, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Think we need some more sysops to fight wandals[edit]

See above... agreement? Dissension? Calls for my head on a plate?-αmεσ (ninja) 20:46, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Can I agree, self-nominate, and call for your head on a platter all at the same time? Stile4aly 21:10, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Why, yes! I'm not an admin but I vote to sysop Stile.-αmεσ (ninja) 21:31, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Done. We have to clear up Fisher-price's crap, who I just blocked for many, many seconds... humanUser talk:Human 22:50, 10 November 2007 (EST)

ZOOOOMG congrats Stile! Now can I have checkuser :-D -αmεσ (ninja) 22:51, 10 November 2007 (EST)

See your talk page humanUser talk:Human 22:55, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Can I have evil powers? Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:06, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Ask Hooman. I feel too newly minted to make decisions, except possibly making Bohdan a bot and checkusering the recent superwandal (done!).-αmεσ (ninja) 23:35, 10 November 2007 (EST)
He seems to write off the requests as jokes. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:38, 10 November 2007 (EST)
A compelling case...-αmεσ (ninja) 23:47, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Many thanks. Now, did you ever find out what happens if you make B a bot? Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:51, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Not yet....-αmεσ (ninja) 23:54, 10 November 2007 (EST)

May I use my user rename function to rename Metapedia/white supremacist wandals to funny things, like "I heart MLK JR!" or something?-αmεσ (ninja) 23:25, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I think you should. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 23:51, 10 November 2007 (EST)