Talk:Rule 34

Deletion

I motion for this article to be deleted. It has no possible application to our mission statement. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

We don't need a big long article full of furry pictures the way ED has, but Rule 34 is still pretty cool, and can troll Conservapedia pretty well. .mymyrteax 23:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) Deletion motion seconded. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Thirded. _and marmite 23:12, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Now hold on a moment... [1] Javasca₧ wasn't me!

Good grief! .mymyrteax 23:20, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I can't believe this was deleted after such little discussion especially after such a reliable reference as xkcd was found. I demand it be restored. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:30, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Was that a joke? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm waiting. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

But Rule 34 is HOT! .mymyrteax 23:39, 26 February 2009 (EST)

So's your mom. Can I write an article about her? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Sure. .mymyrteax 23:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)

(EC²) It is irrelevant to our mission. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Wow no wonder you deleted it after only 17 minutes of discussion if two minutes is to long to wait for a reply. Why was it not on mission? We already have an article on mymyrteax' mum. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I deleted it after 17 minutes because three people (ListenerX, Toast, and myself) had agreed that it should be deleted. For a clearly irrelevant article created by a newcomer with almost no understanding of what RationalWiki is actually about, I felt that was plenty of discussion. By the way, I waited twelve minutes for you to respond. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:52, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not Andy Schlafly but Schalfly lieks Mymyrteax too. .mymyrteax 23:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I thought you were John? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)

No, not him but I'll add him to the people who liek Mymyrteax. .mymyrteax 23:49, 26 February 2009 (EST)

While I see no reason for this to be in the mainspace, we could move it to fun. ħuman 23:50, 26 February 2009 (EST)

That is more like it, this site is growing rapidly somewhat. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:52, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Can you add the now-deleted mymyrteax article there too? .mymyrteax 23:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Ideally, funspace articles should actually be entertaining. Neither "Mymyrteax" nor Rule 34 fit the bill. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:55, 26 February 2009 (EST)

This can be made entertaining very easily. CP keep want to sue us for libel, I say this is our chance. Bad idea. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Are you talking about Rule 34 or mymyrteax? .mymyrteax 23:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I was think Rule 34, then I remembered about that fake Ed Poor website and I have gone completely off the idea. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 00:00, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I fear they were talking about uploading Conservapedia-centric pornography. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

To which there can be only one reply: YUCK! ListenerX^TalkerX 00:07, 27 February 2009 (EST)

This thing is still here? ħuman 00:10, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Unfortunately yes. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:12, 27 February 2009 (EST)

button with edit

I agree with deleting this, unless we manage to find a way to expand it into an entire internet culture, I cannot see it contributing to what we are aiming to do. Even as a fun article it just... it isn't funny. I do agree with deleting this, unless we can figure how to expand it. {{jsig}]

(Gah! Edit conflict!) Again, I propose that we delete this article. It has no relevance to any of our mission goals—it does not analyze and refute the anti-science movement, crank ideas, or explore fundamentalism or authoritarianism. The article is not even the slightest bit entertaining, so it doesn't belong in the funspace. It is, to be frank, a random stub about another 4chan meme. I would rather not house anything on the site so lacking in value without purpose. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I vaped this silliness. ħuman 23:30, 4 March 2009 (EST)