From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there a point to this? I know we're not supposed to bite the noobs and all, but I see no hint of the RW missiony thing peeking out around the corners here. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncloaking the comment on male control as it's clearly on mission. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
But it was insanely illiterate. I'd fix it, but I got sick of fixing your illiteracy years ago. Vaping in 3... 2... 1... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
And human, stop fucking deleting shit for no reason other than to be a jackass control freak. If it sucks, help it. make it better. As others have said, over and over, this is not YOUR wiki. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good post! Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

mission challenge[edit]

Seems to be as on-mission as many other articles. AceModerator 03:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Many "less missiony" articles are also very good. This is a bare, lame stub, with a commented out weird bit of commentary. I would not be against it being rewritten or recreated someday. Right now it's just junk. See above for how long it has been junk. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC) There is a fair amount of material in comments below the page's initial section. I am in the process of re-writing this material to make it legible. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The stuff in the comment section should not be included until it's researched. It was shit I literally pulled out of my ass, to try to see how to make this article more on mission. The fact that PC wanted to uncomment it doesn't say anything about it's validity. Not the quality, the validity. Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that, hence the re-write. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so add links to other articles about abortion and sexuality, and for some classic RW, point out Conservapedia still doesn't have any articles about reproductive organs. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
What's a Conservapedia? Тytalk 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Very well, then, we don't have to mention CP. The biological process of pregnancy might not need an article, but there's so much around it that needs coverage; Abortion, medical woo, food woo, etc... It makes sense to have one page that connects to all the others.--TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)