User talk:BarneyBot

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, BarneyBot. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

Hi Barny. It is possible you have misunderstood the function of this fine site.--Bob^{bing up} 10:36, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Notable (is it even? I never heard of it) does not excuse needless and pointless unfunny vulgarity. Thunderkatz^Ho! 10:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Our purpose

Hello Barny Bot: I Replied to you on my talk page but it is possible that you are not aware that we don't usually ping pong conversations here. You asked what our site was about and said that your mission was to promote a certain "Drew Pickles". I am sure this a worthy ambition, but I regret that it is not one which you would be advised to further here. Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes the following:

• Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement.
• Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.
• Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

We welcome contributors, and we encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in a constructive dialogue. As your remarkable contributions don't really seem to further these goals they have been deleted. Nevertheless you may find something of interest on this site. Some of our articles are even claimed to be funny. :-)--Bob^{bing up} 11:12, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

To summarize what my esteemed colleague said: Take your crappy phailmemes elsewhere. Kkthxbai. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 11:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Try Encyclopædia Dramatica. I'm sure their humor is much more in line with what you view as funny. Heck, go to 4chan. They love that kind of stuff. Just don't take it here. Thunderkatz^Ho! 12:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Or metapedia or stormfront, but be sure to give them your real name and address so that they can personally thank you.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I tried Encyclopedia Dramatica already. They blocked me. --BarneyBot 18:52, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

And Uncyclopedia, Liberapedia and Wikipedia has Drew Pickles as protected, and Conservapedia blocked me after I added the material to an existing page. Can you name some other wikis I can use to advertize the Barney Bunch videos?--BarneyBot 18:56, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Try GetlostWiki. _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 19:25, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Deletion

Not actually an article though is it? (Or, perhaps, was it?)--Bob^{bing up} 13:21, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Is there a version of {{delete}} for troll user pages? :) _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 13:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Can he be classified as a vandal? Then we can just replace the page with {{vcat}}. Thunderkatz^Ho! 13:26, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe there is. User pages are always a bit of a problem because they are given a sort of special protection status. Castle sort of thing. But in reality this protection is not always absolute. It's a mob question I think. But the preemptive deletion may have been going a bit far.--Bob^{bing up} 13:28, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Quite possibly. Feel free to revert me if you think I went too far. _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←}

Mmmmm. Now you put me on the spot. I didn't like it one little bit, but I wouldn't have gone so far as to zap it until we had consensus. But to bring it back once it's gone .... don't think I'd want to go that far either. (Isn't moral cowardice a terrible thing?) --Bob^{bing up} 13:48, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Not as bad as immoral cowardice :) Perhaps we should have a mini-vote to see if there is consensus? _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 13:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

OK. Shall you and I vote very quietly, or should we let others vote as well?--Bob^{bing up} 13:53, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I propose that we hold a short vote on the matter of letting other people vote.

...

Do you concur? :) _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 13:59, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes I concur. We have consensus on the voting procedure, I think. And the question to be voted on is: should other people vote? (I may be getting confused here.)--Bob^{bing up} 14:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Before we vote, the rest of the wiki ought to hold a brief referendum on whether we are fit to vote on their inclusion on the forthcoming vote. We can vote on whether you are confused later. _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 14:05, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

OK that sounds fair. How do you propose to organize said referendum? (I trust that you do not have some complex democratic system such as, for example, voting, to establish the methodology?)--Bob^{bing up} 14:10, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I shall consult the I Ching. _{<blink>↳</blink> ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 14:14, 27 June 2008 (EDT)