User talk:Zieber

Hello Zieber! Welcome to RationalWiki.

In response to your query on my talk page: sure. WaitingforGodot was absolutely correct[1]. I (nor anyone else) do not have a monopoly on contributions to any page, please feel free to modify any article you want!

Thank you for your introduction, that page did need it.

I am not very active here any more, but, hope to see you around sometime. Hope you like the place :) Icewedge 01:21, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Zieber! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

TheoryOfPractice 13:30, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Sysop

You. Mop, bucket. Guide here. Good luck! JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 13:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm honored. zieber 13:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

You've been a wiki-linking machine recently. Cheers for the work on the Bible too. ^theist 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy order. Thanks for your support. zieber 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo Armondikov's sentiments. Nice wikilinking. Obviously, you are a deep cover troll building credibility before you destroy our wiki. Or, you just might be a nice person. Welcome to the Dollhouse! ħuman 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you're on to me. zieber (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. At your recent edit to some page. Nice work. ħuman 02:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. We don't do good things just because we think someone is watching...but it helps. zieber (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Homo erectus‎

Nice work on the Homo erectus‎ article, thanks. - π 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

McLean vs Arkansas

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. That's a good looking article. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. When I am done fixing the occasional typos I want to stick a gold brain on it. ħuman 08:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Salutations

		Official Barnstar of the United Knights against Red Links

Тy^Talk. 20:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good thing...right? zieber (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Тy^Talk. 19:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

red links

Why don't you knock out the ones in mainspace first, by making new articles and redirects, instead of rampaging through archive pages, talk pages, and people's user space? I think you misunderstand the complaints about redlinks. At least that's how it seems. Or, just remove the [[brackets]].---brxbrx 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to get the link just right or you'll end up with a redlink to another page. But go ahead and see how you do with some more. And Thank You. 04:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Thanks for the encouragement. I believe "Fun:Numbers" to be the name of the referenced page. The second red link comes from the fact that the page duplicates. I think it is a joke (x2). I think it is due to an "include" command at the top of the page. zieber (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, they aren't necessarily a bad thing at all. Try to guess if the red linked article would be on-mission if written, if so, the red link should stay (or be written - even a smart stub?). Red links are not an enemy, they are useful - they populate "wanted pages", for example. ħuman 07:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New mop

In case you've forgotten how to use it. 05:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Over-linking

There is such thing as over-linking and a large proportion of the links you add are not necessary - they don't add much useful information and they can decrease readability. We are not Wikipedia, and even they have a guideline about avoiding over-linking.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

*zieber acknowledges receipt of this comment* zieber (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Under linking. Jebus, Zieber, you shoudn't just run around nowiking every damn red link you can find. There are many healing methods in the wiki editor's palette, please try to use the ones appropriate to the task, rather than that sledgehammer you've been running around with. ħuman 05:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Human, I believe every link I've nowiki'ed has been either off mission or was a "pretend" link. If you could point out which of my edits you disapprove of I would appreciate it. zieber (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The ones I undid, one way or another. Like half of them. ħuman 06:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

the fuck are you doing?

Trolling through year-old archived talk pages and playing with links? The hell is that all about? P-Foster (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to accuse me of trolling after all of the work I've done here?

So I de-linked some links to previously deleted pages. And that page wasn't marked "do not edit."

Why are you people so dedicated to your red links? There are like 5000 entries on the "wanted pages list," and most of those are crap. You can't even tell where your actual wanted pages are.

Y'all can keep your red links. I give up. zieber (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. P-Foster (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Genuine wanted pages are supposed to be proposed on the RationalWiki:To do list, although it's not used as much as it should be. Redlinks aren't a reliable guide to what's a wanted page; we should probably rename the special page for them to something else. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for P-Foster here, but trolling has other meanings, which seem to make more sense in this case (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Cowhammer is smart. P-Foster (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Zieber, as above, you aren't really helping if you execute a rule blindly. Please look at the context before making simplistic edits. ħuman 06:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Acts essay

I'd like to bring your essay on "Acts" into the main space. I don't know if you are around or not, but let me know if you care. you did say it's an "open essay". GodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)