User talk:Bicycle Wheel/2014

How so?

[1]--"Shut up, Brx." 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yo propsed deleting articles because f their length, rather than their mission potential, just to avoid argments. Sophie^Wilder 13:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I proposed first deleting articles because of their length, and then moving on to larger articles--"Shut up, Brx." 16:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that moving articles to user space would also be untenable at best. While many of the articles under scrutiny right now are indeed some editor's pet project, many have been built up on over time by various others. - GrantC (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously at least some discussion would be held before vaping something.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to, "That should preferably be relegated to user space, to avoid any drama", though I may have misinterpreted what you meant there. - GrantC (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Creationism & Empirical Knowledge

Respected Sophie, I could not understand the purpose of renaming my article. If you have some reservations, then it should be discussed first. I therefore urge your goodself to please remove "Essay:" affixed to article title. Nannadeem (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My Article (Essay) has been deleted, could you please be kind enough to guide me for its restoration. Thanks and respectfully, yours Nannadeem (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You can try to remake your article or essay in your own userspace in a separate sandbox page. In order to make such a page search for User:Your username/sandbox and create the page by editing. Then when it's ready to become a real article or essay you can move it to the appropriate space (taking into account feedback from others). Nullahnung (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And don't just rewrite something that already exists on another wiki. The fact that you are the one who wrote it on the other wiki makes no difference. Spud (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see

Please see the latest post

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:PaulRJ

PaulRJ 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it. How does it concern me? Sophie^Wilder 18:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A side-effect of your vandal bin

Can't upload photos, nor move articles. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, That's not why I did it. Sophie^Wilder 19:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding good books

Personally I save myself the Google search and head on over to Goodreads. Good one-stop shop for reviews and comments, since honestly I have trouble trusting the ones on Amazon and such to be legit. --Kels (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Board of trustees

Someone nominated you for the Board of Trustees. You may accept or decline here--"Shut up, Brx." 21:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is v.v.v. good you have accepted nomination for the board of trustees. Your success is occult and would be open soon. This is my scientific theory. Nannadeem (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I have a theory too. It is about Brontosauruses. Ahem. Sophie^Wilder 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I am not entitled to cast vote for BoT. What is your expert opinion?Nannadeem (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Voting eligibility requirements are having an account for six months and having 75 total edits or more. You only joined a month ago, and have only 27 edits. However, you will be able to vote in next years Board elections. You've clearly been working hard on your edits, and I hope you'll stick around that long. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I desire to be a figure in your success, but am unable to materialize my vote in your favor. However, I have a formula i.e. I offer my prayers for your success (it is a theory). After success you would offer me a chocolate (this is a practical). This procedure satisfies scientific method and appears to be acceptable. So Please accept my offer. Nannadeem (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So if I get in, you get chocolate? Nice try, but I don't think so somehow :) Sophie^Wilder 09:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you got the chair of BoT? Have not voting results so far been finalized? Nannadeem (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah-ah! Spoilers! Sophie^Wilder 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I could not understand. Anyhow, I am once again asking that result of elections 2014 have already been announced? or would be announced! Nannadeem (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I nominated her, I should get chocolate, too. It would be just like the Powers That Be to withhold the election results in order to prevent chocolate reward claimants from getting their fair share. Leuders (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for test of a good chocolate is over without success - so I could not increase my low sugar level.

Sophie Wilder: Now you have atleast one of two keys of success (that is try again, the other is a push & pull by a woman for a success of any unit of mankind). Your inclusion to BoT would be realized this year. Still dreaming for your success.Nannadeem (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So what if the results don't publicly disclose her election. How can you be sure she's not part of a secret shadow government that controls RW? Leuders (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no cabal! There's Caramel, though, which at least sounds sort of similar. Sophie^Wilder 19:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

e-mail

Check your e-mail, please. 96.30.34.152 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Pat on the back

Good show. I suspect I know the reason why, but I'm not inclined to find out whether or not I was right. Either way, he needed to go. Fast! Nice job. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I have a low tolerance for trolls and cranks at the best of times, but a line was crossed yesterday that I couldn't let lie. Sophie^Wilder 10:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Might I enquire as to what happened? Because Ehrenstein always did seem like a bit of a… well, um, disreputable gentleman, and I know he had made quite a few offensive statements in the past, but, without context, blocking him forever just seems a bit… excessive, you know? So yeah, I know it's none of my business, but it just makes me feel kind of uneasy. So thanks. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

PSaL just emailed me, and I have to say that you did the right thing. Have you considered reporting him to some legal authorities for slander/whatever? Because what he did doesn't even sound legal. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what he did, but I don't find it hard to believe that something like this would be justified, given his past behaviour. - Grant (Talk) 00:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm patiently waiting for Hokusai R. Duke to appear, and bestow upon us his calumny, opprobrium, and pearls of wisdom. Also, cheers, Sophie! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Check your email please.

Thanks. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done and replied. Sophie^Wilder 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Whose law was it...

... that said anyone noting an error is bound to make an error in the note? (unsig!) Scream!! (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Muphry's law, I believe. Did I err? Sophie^Wilder 19:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You ticked Mr Wiki Pro off for welcoming spambots & forgotted to sine. :(Mr W P appears to have LANCEB'd btw) Scream!! (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh bugger. Sophie^Wilder 19:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Summat weird about him: all the wikis he's a member of, he's joined in last couple of weeks except one : end of December. Just sayin' Scream!! (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Has more free time = caught wiki fever. Nothing weird about that! Nullahnung (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In 2007 I think I joined half the wikis I could find. Sophie^Wilder 10:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's dangerous to go alone

Take this! {{Template:Talkpage/Pibot |algo = old(28d) |archive = Talk:Example/Archive%(counter)d }} Zero (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You kids and your new-fangled gadgets. Sophie^Wilder 08:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice is sought

Having been pleased after reading the news http://www.tehrantimes.com/middle-east/114569-iraqi-mps-launch-move-to-nominate-ayatollah-sistani-for-nobel-peace-prize of an initiative taken by Iraqi Member Parliaments for award of Noble Prize for Peace to a top Muslim Cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, I intend to write an article on this topic. Theme of the Article , I have in my mind is (1) Humanity (2) Bridge between terrorism and true tolerance (3) Source of seeking Appreciation from non religion quarters (4) Previous Christian Community support to this Shia Cleric. This Muslim Cleric has been denoted atheist by his antagonist.

What is your valued advice for my writing article on this topic! Nannadeem (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

the answer is: I don't know. Sophie^Wilder 09:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Geocentrism

Thanks for improving the article about Tycho Brahe. Google ranks our article on geocentrism high on the first page. I wonder if you can improve the wording. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Sophie^Wilder 18:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I sent you an email the other day

^--"Shut up, Brx." 19:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cocaine and condoms

Thanks for getting rid of that. I tried to make it at least accurate, but never thought it fit. TeenageWasteland (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It might help you to know that Proxima has a bee in her bonnet about the Catholic Church, and anything that makes it look bad absolutely must go in an article somewhere. Sophie^Wilder 14:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why hate on the Catholics? TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina

That SC thing has been done before - at least once & (I think) twice. The final March entry is one & I recall it in Blogs or Clogs about the same time. Scream!! (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh bugger. Sophie^Wilder 15:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bible

While that article was an acknowledged crapfest, redirecting something about a contemporary TV show to an ancient text is a little weird. We should probably have an article on the actual series. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

why? There are lots of films and miniseries about the Bible, the only RWish thing about this particular one is that the role of Satan was played by someone who looks like Barack Obama. Also I fail to follow your argument that a TV show about the Bible has nothing to do with the Bible. Sophie^Wilder 19:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My argument, I guess, is that the TV show was a specific cultural production done at a specific time/in a specific context that might let us say something interesting about the place of religion in popular culture in Obama-era America. I would like to see the article left up for at least a little while to see if any editors have something smarter to say about it than I do. But I'm not gonna get all huffy about it. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The redirect is pointless when there's nothing linking to it. Might as well delete it if there are no plans for an article. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Saloon bar talk

Thanks for that: I couldn't work out what had happened about a fortnight ago so I left it. Scream!! (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone tried to rollback but it only undid one edit. I've not seen that happen before. Sophie^Wilder 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll be thrilled

I sent you another email. Tell me, do you even read the emails I send you or do you delete them on sight? It'd be nice to know. At the very least, it'd save me the trouble of writing them. Wow, that sounds desperate. Oh well, make of it what you will.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It personally makes me happy that she ignores you. I don't wish suffering on a creature like you, but I also don't wish you peace. You are an awful, sick person. Please leave. 03:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should ignore me too, nutty--"Shut up, Brx." 22:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Colorado?

I was looking for an easy article to write (boring day at work) and found yours on Colorado and thought, "Damn you for knowing this state so well and still being an avowed limey!" Then I calmed down, realizing it was well done. So damn you and kudos all at once! MarmotHead (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think I wrote any of that. It's copied from a previous version, but thanks for reminding me that I was planning to get rid of all the state articles. Sophie^Wilder 18:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

They should probably be deleted, so I'll give you credit for that, instead. OTOH, Ted Haggard is so fun to talk about ... MarmotHead (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WIGO

Bravo! I fully support your campaign to eliminate WIGOs with meaningless titles. Placeholder (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Userbox

I made a userbox you might be interested in:

#874040

This user loves #874040.

^talk 12:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

this is elephant to my intersect. Sophie^Wilder 21:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good job

Congratulations, Bicycle Wheel/2014! For your fine efforts in deleting that dox thing, you have now been awarded 15 "good job"s! Use them wisely. Your pal, Messiah

Made this template for fun, figured I may as well use it. \m/ESSIAH 05:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just want to say

It's good to see you back on site. That is all. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That Blunt Knives stuff left me wanting nothing to do with the place, then I wanted to say something about Moderators and it was downhill from there! Sophie^Wilder 18:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been tuning in & out for a while. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Traditional values

"Value" in artistic terms means where a patch of color sits in the range of light to dark. I restored that section, but if you think it's too playful, or not playful enough, and remove it again, my feelings won't be hurt. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You should add a section on Tesco Value Burgers :) Sophie^Wilder 19:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Mikemikev

The guy vandalizing your page is Mikemikev, a mental-case sex pest who owns hundreds of South Korean sock IPs. He's been banned at Wikipedia, Metapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and virtually every wiki/encyclopedia site for harassing people. He often targets females and sends them explicit sexual threats i.e. asking if they want to be raped. [2] Windir (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I guessed who it was. Sophie^Wilder 19:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Mikemikev is banned from Metapedia? <expresses bogglement> Sophie^Wilder 20:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I humbly request your arbitration at the chicken coop.

If I am to stand trial I'd like it to be a legitimate one where I'm judged by someone non partial. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Instructions

Are all kept at the top of this page. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why we have the process in the first place. Sophie^Wilder 19:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Those instructions aren't very clear & the ones that appear when you post the deletion template are worse. This isn't an easy system to follow, especially to anybody unused to wiki-coding. There are also no instructions whatsoever about when to close a deletion nomination & how to archive it. The whole system (at least in its current form) is over-reliant on a small clique of users running the deletion process, which is the opposite of what the system was intended to be. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

From now on I'm just going to stick links directly into the AFd page instead of farting about with this pointless system. Sophie^Wilder 09:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do what I do and stick to putting deletion discussions on the article's talkpage. Somebody eventually comes along and does all the AfD templating and page creation work for me after I do that. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good move. Sophie^Wilder 09:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Help me, O God of RationalWiki

I've been working on the Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge page for a few months now, with few other people making any edits. If you could skim it and tell me whether I'm screwing it all up, that'd be great. Thanks! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

cough Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Totnes

If you ever get round to writing the article, you might find this link of some use. Or not. http://www.chrisrand.com/hmhb/csi-ambleside/totnes-bickering-fair/ I've just done what I can to subvert WP. If you know another Cultural Reference which you can slam into WP quickly, we might get past the anal-retentive trivia-deleting humourless gits editors which infest the place. ProblemChimp (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I dislike meaningless lists of "this was mentioned some somg by some band" you won't get a lot f help out of me. Sophie^Wilder 09:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing the source of sources

I have a question, if you don't mind answering it; in universities, although Wikipedia is not an acceptable source, teachers allow sources used on Wikipedia, while not requiring the additional citing of the Wikipedia article you learned about it from. Is Rational wiki's standard higher than that of most accredited universities? Does this wiki require that in addition to the references that the source of the references also be cited? If that is the case, than shouldn't we include the series of words we used to google search those references as well to create a better Memex trail? Also, are Wikipedias references off limits? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer to all of those questions is "no" and I think you already know that. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well. He wasnt asking dumb questions and people have been unreasonable to him about wikipedia to the point that I was getting sick of seeing him getting bullied by dipshits who are just as boring on the Internet as I'd expect of them in real life. The answer to his second question would be yes for many cites people use without acknowledging their actual source, not just here but everywhere. I sincerely sincerely sincerely doubt people actually read more than they want to of things that reinforce the points they want to make. Vanity trumps honesty. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sophie, there's not necessarily anything wrong with copying from WP. The content is sometimes perfectly appropriate to give context or some more useful information. Mikal's idiotic claim that people can just go to wikipedia is fucking idiotic. They were here first, and as long as our content isn't identical, which it's not, what's the harm? Exiled's problem is attribution, which is responsive to David's fair point that he's at least not complying with the license. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)