User talk:DasRationalpersone/Conservapedia:RuneScape

more fancruft?--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-mission

Conservapedia is no longer the focus of this wiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Either move to CP-space or nuke it. Тy^Talk. 12:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this page was designed to counter conservapedia, I just didn't know how to set it in Conservapedia space. Do I just put Conservapedia: tag before title? DasRationalpersone (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mooved to proper namespace. Ta-da! But to answer your question, yes, you just put Conservapedia: before the title. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So now I can remove {{mission}}? DasRationalpersone (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose so. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 13:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete, again

Are we going to have individual articles critiquing every obscure article on CP? If this is a CP article, it's a minor and irrelevant one. This here article about the minor CP article is poorly written, makes no sense, and doesn't really help to develop our critique of CP. Delete. P-Foster (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is a prime example of how CPs are trying to demonize and attack everything that is even remotely not in line with their believes. No matter if it's as irrelevant thing as a videogame. Keep. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 13:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's an obscure example, not a prime anything. It's not an article that has gotten much traffic or created much buzz. And I bet when I go look at the edit history,I'll find that every single person who's ever edited it is now on a five-year ban. P-Foster (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article is written like shit. P-Foster (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some article of whom you may wish to read at least introducements before stating that this article doesn't make sense: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Saradomin http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Zamorak http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Guthix http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Zaros http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/H.A.M. http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Perils_of_ice_mountain http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/God_wars http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Monkey#Origin_of_humans As for poorly written - you are free to improve the language. I am not a native English speaker.

I am not on five-years ban. You lose your bet.

And why should be an article on 100 most popular on Rational Wiki chart to be keeped?-- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, YOU wrote the article on CP? Is that why you're telling me that you aren't on a five-year ban? And now you want to promote it here by pointing out how bad it is? P-Foster (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that you mean everyone who wrote this article were baned. Sorry. No. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, nobody of note has touched the CP article except for the occasional reversion. It's generated no debate, no great Andy "insights," no epic edit wars, no colossal expressions of craziness, nothing. it's filler on CP, nothing more. There is no reason for us to document that with an article that's longer than the CP article, and nobody seems to want to bring this poorly-written thing up to snuff, precisely because it's about an article of ZERO import on CP. P-Foster (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it hurt Rational Wiki for having one CP-debunking article more? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's as poorly-written as this one, and if it makes us look like we're doing a half-assed job by focusing on stuff that doesn't matter, yes. Yes it does. P-Foster (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for this article. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ARuneScape&action=historysubmit&diff=817696&oldid=817695 -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but this is a collaborative project and the article belongs to all of us. Move it to your user space if you want to take ownership of it. P-Foster (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You realize that you can't delete this based on just your opinion? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why i'm waiting for a few more people to weigh in. P-Foster (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Get the fucking article back! You can't act on your own! -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting it back for further debate. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 14:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote to kill it. And I'm an editor who only really cares about the CP stuff. --Benod (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The page has had 5,000 views on CP - it's hardly a flagship article. Plus the fact that any article on CP, unless owned by people like Ken and Andy, is likely to have been infested with parodists. This makes commentating on it immensely unreliable. Unless Andy picks up and defends it, then no, we don't need this. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is really important to you, how about writing an article about video games on CP in general and including the material there? Single articles should be reserved for the real standout moments of CP insanity, like Conservative Words or the CBP. Röstigraben (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Rostigraben. RuneScape, in and of itself, doesn't seem so important, but the whole scape of video games in general on CP could have some merit. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 15:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)