User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki D
Dalek[edit]
Category:AIs[edit]
If I'm not mistaken, the Daleks are not "AIs," so to speak, they are genetically engineered cyborgs. Liveware Problem 03:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is a joke. Ty 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the category's context, Dalek didn't fit the "joke." Liveware Problem 18:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Drama queen[edit]
Blatant plagiarism[edit]
Amazing. Are you really down to cutting and pasting articles from RW now? You could have at least acknowledged it - or for that matter me, as I wrote 99% of it.--False Flag 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should have been here. In copying it I do not take credit for the work, I am merely doing my job here (adding content). --Arthropleura 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If your job here is simply plagiarism then you are doing well. If your job is to produce interesting original content then you are not.--False Flag 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your point? --Arthropleura 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do I take it that reading is not your strong point? My point is that you should produce original content and not plagiarize the work of others.--False Flag 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- [1] --Arthropleura 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- You also lost all rights when you wrote it. --Arthropleura 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the concept of plagiarism then I have no more to say to you.--False Flag 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check the page moron. Little 'note' at the end. --Arthropleura 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although my real point is simply about the morality of copying other work, if you want to get technical about it and refer to the GNU, I'd say that section four paragraph (I) says that you need to include the document history, and section (J) says that you need to link back to the original. In other words you need to acknowledge the source and link back to it.--False Flag 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then why not just do that? You can edit it just as well as CUR can. Or if you think it should be deleted from RWW, then say so. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair comment. Although my objections to CUR's plagiarism remain. But if nobody objects here, I shall presently edit the article to credit its origins.--False Flag 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then why not just do that? You can edit it just as well as CUR can. Or if you think it should be deleted from RWW, then say so. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although my real point is simply about the morality of copying other work, if you want to get technical about it and refer to the GNU, I'd say that section four paragraph (I) says that you need to include the document history, and section (J) says that you need to link back to the original. In other words you need to acknowledge the source and link back to it.--False Flag 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check the page moron. Little 'note' at the end. --Arthropleura 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the concept of plagiarism then I have no more to say to you.--False Flag 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do I take it that reading is not your strong point? My point is that you should produce original content and not plagiarize the work of others.--False Flag 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your point? --Arthropleura 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- If your job here is simply plagiarism then you are doing well. If your job is to produce interesting original content then you are not.--False Flag 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The points system must be off...[edit]
I only score a 3.25, and I've been accused of being the biggest drama queen in RW's history. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 01:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I get a 6. You can have a consolation bonus if you like. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist
- ...I get's a zero. AWWW...oh well. --만두 01:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- 2008 me gets a 7.5. 2012 me gets a 0 or 0.75, depending on how much I stretch the definition of edit warring. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" (cover your eyes!) 02:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- ...I get's a zero. AWWW...oh well. --만두 01:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dumpling[edit]
...I was a sock of Human? What? How do people even come to this conclusion?--만두 05:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- We have a user called human and you wrote an essay called "I'm only human". Also for some reason our old guys like to act like young cute and friendly girls. Yeah, slightly creepy... --Ullhateme 12:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- -snicker- Ooooh. Hahahahaha. Okay. Got it. NOPE. I'm a young girl. Cute and friendly are sometimes.--만두 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oy![edit]
The pictures arn't bizarre ~ Just an expression of my love.
I work really hard on them. (No, you don't, some of them look like squiggles.)
...When I do! (...Whenever that is, lazy lazy bum. ).
...Curse you inner voice. --만두 06:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're just asking for a sentence after that one saying "She sometimes lets her "inner voice" take over her fingers." That, Dumpling, will only make you sound more weird. Tobul Oltarolin 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- ...I have nothing against ME being weird. I know I am. And sometimes it scares me. Besides! The 'bizarre' picture is me loving on Blue. What's 'bizarre' about it?--만두 08:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like an onion humping a puddle? Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" (cover your eyes!) 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- ...I have nothing against ME being weird. I know I am. And sometimes it scares me. Besides! The 'bizarre' picture is me loving on Blue. What's 'bizarre' about it?--만두 08:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)