User talk:Slings and Arrows

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Slings and Arrows!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Pull up a goat! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 08:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


Enjoy. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


If I may ask, what makes you so interested in Crothers? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in Crothers whatsoever. I am just writing my very first RationalWiki article, and trying to be as thorough and meticulous as possible. Any constructive criticism, or advice you can offer would be most helpful and greatly appreciated. Slings and Arrows (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


the new name--Miekal 01:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

No complaints about the edits but the "m" for minor edits should be reserved for typos, spelling corrections and the like. Please don't call additions of references and such minor. Cheers. Scream!! (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Any further edits will be better documented. Slings and Arrows (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No reason to apologize. It's not that big a deal, really. Sterile (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Internet Kooks[edit]

My RationalWiki user name (Slings and Arrows) has been added to the List of Internet Kooks. Should I just delete it? How is this sort of thing usually handled? Slings and Arrows (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest that you look at the entry using "Edit" :-) Scream!! (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Another RationalWiki user is putting my user name on lists of kooks. I can easily delete the entry, but I don't who is doing this, so I can't tell the person to please stop. This is just childish behavior by someone who disagrees with my viewpoints.— Unsigned, by: Slings and Arrows / talk / contribs

NOBODY is doing it: Look at the section using "edit"!!!!! Scream!! (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Or instead of Scream!!ing unclear instructions, you can explain that it's a joke: there's code on that page that inserts the user name of hoever is looking at it.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh! Please quote Pratchet at me, ZG. Love him. Scream!! (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay I get it now; it's meant to be a joke. I'm still adapting to the unusual RationalWiki humor found at this site. Thank you for clearing that up. Slings and Arrows (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

that thing on talk:anne rice[edit]

Are you gonna add it to Saloon or nah? (JW) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has been already proposed for deletion: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anne Rice--ZooGuard (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not it. :P FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do plan to post it at the Saloon. At the moment, I am gathering statistics on the number of pseudoscience articles vs. non-pseudoscience articles at RationalWiki. Slings and Arrows (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting. What methodology? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not as easy as I thought it would be. Many of the articles cover multiple topics, and it is difficult to categorize them. But I am only assessing random samples; such as "recent changes" and "new articles". What I am trying to determine is if RationalWiki's stated goals are in fact being realized. Slings and Arrows (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool. This feels relevant. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Neither of those two pages are true random samples. "Analyzing" Recent changes is especially hard to do, since it will is biased heavily towards controversial topics generating arguments or events-in-progress that require updates, not to mention dealing with vandals, seagulls and similar issues. For example, until recently, a large part of Recent changes was cluttered by the edits of an energetic, but clueless good-faith editor and arguments with a not-so-good-faith outsider convinced that states don't exist/are tantamaunt to religion.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I bet "random page" is more relevant here, even if its samples aren't time-specific. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Another approach is to count the number of existing articles; for instance, the number of pseudoscience articles vs. non-pseudoscience articles; which would eliminate biases. However, some of the articles are not cut and dry, and spill over into multiple categories. Slings and Arrows (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Random page would let you take a sample of the existing articles. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that idea. "Random page" would certainly be the easiest approach. Slings and Arrows (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Nice work, man. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! At this point, the article is still a work in progress; but I have managed to make some headway. Slings and Arrows (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Christopher (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)