Talk:Main Page/Archive25

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

Captcha questions

There seem to be only 3 or 4 of them - the 'infinite monkeys with typewriters and their bots' will soon discover the responses. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the experiment. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

cp portal, fun/recipes

I say remove them and extend the other portals. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I say all yall get off fagwiki and get a life ^{— Unsigned, by: ISwagHard / talk / contribs}

CP portal meaning what, the namespace or something else? --il'Dictator Mikal 02:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

on the main page, under more featured content. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh.. never scrolled that far on the mainpage; I aree. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to know what people click on the mainpage? Because I imagine that most non-regulars just stick to the featured article and the search bar.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of anything that lowers CP's profile here. It just makes us look less serious. --Godot 03:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We're serious? News to me. I agree with removing those two, though, they're kinda low-quality by comparison. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

+1 tmt. Blue (is useful) 04:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. The CP- and funspaces are niche spaces, and are markedly lower quality compared to the others. Neither is worthy of being displayed on the main page. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Get 'em off the mainpage. They don't meet the quality or content standards of the mainspace for a reason. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree: some of the material is quite good... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! guess what, its still going to be on the wiki; just not here--il'Dictator Mikal 21:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know, but nevertheless: I don't think that the cp-portal is detrimental to this wiki. Indeed, CP is dying and RationalWiki is looking at least stable, but Conservapedia seems to be the better known brand still. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but they were kind of weirdly mixed in with the "serious" content portals. Putting them back in a separate little section might work, since there's still free space there. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see that some of the "off-mission" stuff has been removed from MP, but why not replace it with something? There are some good articles in pseudolaw (including one featured topic). I was unaware of this field before reading RW, so I think it could do with more exposure.Gomer (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have other "good" "portals" yet? (goes to look at MP next...) ħuman 02:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, AOTW club is dead. ħuman 02:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Join our Article-a-Week Club. "

The article a week club is deader than flares. Why are we linking to it? Sophie^Wilder 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On it. Evil fascist^{oh noez} 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish it was less dead. The biggest obstacle to me in contributing to mainspace is the uncertainty that anyone else has anything to add to any page I might make or try and clean up. Lack of collaboration and all that. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda a dumb reason. (take that with love). We need your voice. If you contribute, and no one else helps, then so be it. But you are insightful, smart, and you write really well. Sides, we have too few women actually editing around here. :-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

London Borough of Ealing

... on its library computers intermittently blocks RW pages 'for the usual reasons'... and its blocking system now blocks its own webpage. Amusing? 82.198.250.73 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I recall my high school's computer's blocking Google, once. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At one point the default search engine on the computers at school was bing, which was blocked - we had to do some fiddling to change it. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 08:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes 'computers see smut when the rest of us do not' (a UK football club, a UK seaside resort, the ecclesiastical history website blocked as occult), and there are 'placenames which are the subject of amusement' (the Austrian village) while Wikipedia occasionally has main pages which 'cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth.'

'Morning Glory Drive' (street/avenue whatever) in the US recently had a namechange. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my naivete, but to me, a morning glory is a firework. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

To me it's a flower. Sophie^Wilder 21:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"What's the story Morning Glory?" Nobody^{don't bother} 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything that can be turned into a double entendre will be. What would CP make of the traditional British seaside postcard? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Caesar's palace, morning glory, silly human race". rpeh •T•C•E• 16:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would probably be way more inclined to help out here if I didn't have to fill out a Captcha with every edit.

Like this one. Seriously, what's the deal with that? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 02:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Anti Spam, you should be good now. --Revolverman (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm very good now. mmm-hmmm. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It should stop automatically about 24 hours after you joined, I think. Peter ^mqzp 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a very necessary anti-spam measure. It goes away a) 24 hours after you registered and b) after you make 10 edits. Blue (pester) 03:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No it does not go away after ten edits. Bart Manchuso (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The operative word is "and." Peter ^mqzp 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"It is a very necessary anti-spam measure." Weird that y;all need to limit editing like that and Wikipedia doesn't -- you think spammers would go for the bigger hit. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that we just spent a week fighting off a very persistent vandal script, I'd say it's necessary. Changing to the current system is what stopped them. Peter ^mqzp 04:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I just edited as an ip over there -- no captcha required. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 04:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats nice, we aren't wikipedia though. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WP, being so large, can also just shrug off a large attack. We may be small, but we make 'enemies' easy—not a good mix. Peter ^mqzp 04:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Trent and David are very good server admin. From the start of RWF, Trent set us up with a scalable VPS slice that can accomodate the kinds of slash/dot effects and Pharyngulations we get. He and David spent dozens and dozens of hours getting the squid system set up to relieve server pressure. The problem is with someone who ramps up to shitting out millions of hits over the course of days. Some pages got at many as 350k hits when Trent crapped out Brazov's bot with quick thinking. So... Trent and David's solutions may inconvenience a few editors but it's better than 10's of thousands of vandal edits across the wiki spamming up RC. I wrote a bot that largely became irrelevant but may be useful later to obviate the need to complain about what edits do get through. At the end of the the day what we've got is a single ReCaptcha per anonymous, and I gather unconfirmed edit. 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Change autoconfirmed?

You know, now that I think about it, autoconfirmed and autopatrolled give you skipcaptcha, but if you don't have skipcaptcha do you get a captcha on every edit? If so, wouldn't it be more productive to change the autoconfirmed requirement to, say, 3 successful captchas? Now that we have more confidence in our captchas, especially? Blue (is useful) 04:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Does autopatrolled give you the ability to skip captchas? I think the best solution would be to combine the two: make a single group that has to be added manually (and can also be removed) once we "trust" the user as with autopatrolled currently. Peter ^mqzp 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it does. Interesting. Peter ^mqzp 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do our captchas have audio for the visually impaired?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you look into it yourself with your vast wisdom and concern instead of seeking attention asking stupid questions? 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You're a real piece of work. What's the matter, are you out of liquor? Your World of Warcraft character died? Or did you happen upon a mirror on the way home, and you can't get the image of that pale, scrawny doofus with greasy hair out of your mind?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, here's an Idea, how about you both act like 20+ year olds and cut this mickey mouse bullshit that makes the entire site look bad? --Revolverman (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I got home from working on my business and saw that you were feigning concern about things you know goddamn well people more competent than you can imagine are handling. 07:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else, thank you. Peter ^mqzp 07:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@PeterL - No. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Beware

1. In October, March, September and May
2. The Ides fall on the 15th day.

- the rest of the time on the 13th. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That really doesn't belong on Talk:Main Page. Go to the Bar and tell us we're all going to get stabbed in order to save the Roman Republic. Spud (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words, welcome to RW. :-/ (formerly Ghostface Editah) 15:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can't convince people, confuse them - and have a 'peculiar conspiracy'/prediction on the main page to amuse those who are 'mostly rational' (apart from the occasional 'hobby fancy') and annoy the conspiracy promoters (and as an exercise in seeing how memes go spread the tubes - like the plastic sea-ducks) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

fuck me, are you STILL wanking on about the ides of march? Get a frigging life. Sophie^Wilder 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And the ideas of march?

The Ides of March have not yet gone. 86.173.234.209 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happened. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The old guard want to fix this mess?

It's hard work. It means editing daily. It means dealing with the noobs and the strangers and the people who really don't understand how this place works - the people who want rules - on an edit by edit basis. Editing Proxima Centauri is "simple" - she means well and brings good things to the site. Ok it's hard work. But at least she is on-mission. You people who call for !votes at every turn have poisoned the site. Your desire for power is antithetical to the mission statement. Your desire to wreck the people who built this place is, frankly, embarrassing. I call to the founders and writers to take this place back! ħuman 03:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

-stands around holding take back RW signs---^Mikal_lakiM 03:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, Occupy RW! ħuman 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Human. It is, after all, his wiki. Damo^Hi 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see RW grow up and realize that we could not possibly be making entirely supportable assumption about who reads this site. 04:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There's still month-and-something 'till May. With some hard work, people can be wound up enough just in time for a nice anniversary...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevant texts, as always:

• A Group Is Its Worst Enemy by Clay Shirky - the above is the explicit call for a wizard smackdown
• The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman - if you don't have an explicit hierarchy, an implicit one will grow out of sight - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A worthy cause Human, but this place is beyond saving at this point. Leave it to the newbies and start a new one. Is Rationalwikiwiki still taken? 72.205.215.192 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The RWF won't take an editorial position but nothing is stopping Trent or the board itself from imposing order. This is its wiki. 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the thing is constantly changing and evolving. And sometimes it will change in ways that "originals" don't like. It's certainly not the same place to which I used to enjoy contributing, but maybe the pendulum will swing back - or at least somewhere else - in time.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We did not elect the board to "impose order" on the wiki. That's not the job they applied for or were chosen for. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

World. Talk. Poop. Beer

I think a reference to wine ought to be made. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I second, the jesus blood motion....SmittyGreen (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

SHUTUPSHUTUPJUSTSHUTUP. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Captcha questions

'Four' should be as acceptable as '4' (and possibly symbols as well). It also seems to be the only answer. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What a wonderful Year it has been...

...This has been such a wonderful year, with the Deaths of Roger Ebert, the Boston Bombings, and the mass destruction in Turkey.--77.109.138.42 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hope that's sarcasm. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Still new

Ok still new didn't know where to put this,but someone, i believe conservative at conservapedia hacked my user page some how (same password most likely) and filled it with racist tripe..,I'm not happy, i was having a nice drunk with my friends, then with my cat (no she wasn't drunk too, just fun to chill with when drunk) then i check my back and everyone is hopping I'm less anti Semitic when sober, well ill have everyone know its impossible for me to be any less anti Semitic than i usually am..fuck man....anyhow i saved what he wrote on my user page and changed it, but he referenced shit i only wrote on the QE blog, and what i wrote to him on conservapedia.....not cool and really really un christian. ^{— Unsigned, by: SmittyGreen / talk / contribs}

This smittygreen was my old account when i first came here, when i tried to sign back in it said it didn't exist, so i made a new one, sorry if that causes any inconvenience or troubles for anyone,feel free to delete the "smittygreen" account LennonKrik (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Link blog here somewhere?

I know it's in the sidebar on every page, but this is apparently too confusing for some. Should it be listed on the Main Page itself somewhere? - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

FOR ME. Totally link it here. Prominently. And I'm not just saying that because I'm high and looking for attention--"Shut up, Brx." 12:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

HIgh is an exxageration. But you should totally put it up on the main page--"Shut up, Brx." 12:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Linode affiliate link

David Gerard gave me a referral link in the Saloon Bar for Linode when I was talking about relocating due to GoDaddy being terrible (most of our on-server third level domains are down 500 and 404 errors, and their support is acting like idiots even though they've fixed it before). I think it could be beneficial to RW if we had it somewhere where other people could benefit from it, if they were looking for webhosting. I could mention that I was the one who added it, not one of the site owners, and that using it could help RW. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is worthy of lengthy discussion by people without the power to do anything about it and who don't do jack shit but talk anyway. 18:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Warcrimes against Germans on the Eastern Front –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here again

Hi, I had become part of this site a few months ago after feeling guilty for enjoying it for so long but after some fun with ken i ended up becoming busy with some sick family members, anyhow now that i finally have some free time to myself i thought I'd try to get back in the loop, and see where i may lend my hand around here, i hope this is the correct page to ask this, but are there any pages around here that have needed editing or creating that ended up pushed to the back burner or that no one felt like creating? I'm looking for a place to start so if i figured id see if there are any pages anyone would like to see made or edited and prettied up LennonKrik (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

theres this magic link on the sidebar over there, it has a list of stuff we need work on. im assuming your smart enough to guess which it is. --^Mikal_lakiM 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mission related stuff is always appreciated. There are lots of articles on creationism and related topics which could be improved, and our global warming content could use significant improvement. Even the more traditional skeptical topics (paranormal, etc.) could use improvement. ^talk 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

...and FYI you probably want to put this type of comment at RationalWiki:Saloon bar ^talk 16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Chemtrails is a rubbish article on a popular subject. Warning; the research may cause brain leakage. Sophie^Wilder 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, ill get to work right away, and sorry i didn't notice that little button in the side I'm sometimes a lil too over zealous so i end up zoning out on the obvious, also sorry i wasn't sure were to post this, ill go for the saloon bar next time LennonKrik (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an update, I've been working on writing and researching on a few mission related and to do list topics, I'm writing them on paper the way i write everything, then 'll have it typed over to here,and you guys can tear it apart, thanks LennonKrik (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to remove CP from the mainpage (etc.) headers

	Is Conservapedia dead yet? Our handy deadometer goes from green - growing rapidly! to red - deader than flares.

May: 10. June: 8. July:6 - that's how many links there are in the WIGO CP page. It's dead, time to stick a fork in it. Remove it from all our front page materials. ħuman 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 04:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Генгис^mutating 05:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have always been hesitant to remove CP materials but it really is looking terminal now. Put it to a vote I say. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, we suck at !voting. I !vote "hmmm". ħuman 05:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Before I vote can I ask; isn't WIGO:CP and the associated talk page one of the main entry points for the site? Tielec01 (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And it still will be. But the people who visit those pages don't get there from the main page. The issue is about RW continuing to showcase it on the front page to newcomers. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A vote it is then

To remove the link to WIGO:CP from the Main Page.

As a note, based on 0-16-1, I've enacted what is obvious consensus. If it changes, feel free to revert me. Hipo^crite 12:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of leaving it for 24 hours so everyone can vote before the fact, but yeah, at this rate it doesn't have a whelk's chance in a supernova. Sophie^Wilder 12:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

0 to 28 to 1 now. Hot damn. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

2 to 37 to 1. Obviously a !vote to "keep" ;) I've never seen a stronger mandate on RW in all my six or so years here. ħuman 05:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So it is time to remove CPWIGO from the mainpage. As much as I hate !voting on wikis, this one seems to be overwhelming. ħuman 04:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep

1. *spits in the wind* Vulpius (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Aww.....it was a easy link to rabid stupidity. It will be missed by me at least!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Perhaps figure out where else to put it before removing anything? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove

1. Just kidding, it should be removed. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
2. It's far too stagnant for the front page, as Human said. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I'd rather we not continue proudly linking to our stream-of-consciousness thoughts on a boring, comatose site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Funspace it. It's time. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Fun time for CP. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 06:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
6. I don't know about moving it to Fun space but the time for getting the link off the main page is long overdue. Spud (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Let's make a start. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Kill it with fire! Scream!! (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Yeah, CP has nothing going on at it these days, so nothing to WIGO. Remove. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
10. Now that the Schlaff is blocking viewing CP via RW, there's not a lot of point linking to it. Sophie^Wilder 09:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
11. Rub salt and pepper in its eyes, that zombie's deader than aSK.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
12. Damo^Hi 09:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I must admit I haven't looked at the mainpage in years. Only vaguely remembered that we had one. I would be opposed to taking it off the header for the other WIGO's though.
13. It can join similarly active wikis like CZ - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Do it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 11:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
15. Yeah. Burndall (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
16. Should join CZ. Hipo^crite 12:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
17. And thus we shall transcend from the shitty realm of CP obsession (someone's going to take that out of context) and join the slightly less shitty realm of back end wikis all trying to get their message out melding into a cacophony of noise that King Wikipedia has to sort out. Incidentally Ken's going to throw a fit. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 12:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
18. Dead as one of those dead things. Remove. Cow...Hammer^time! 13:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
19. God, as much as I have enjoyed that facet of this site, it seems time has run out for CP. We needn't make it a highlight anymore. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 13:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
20. So how bout them snowballs. --^Mikal_lakiM 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Please do. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
22. Game over, we won. Shame in a way: my oldest sock is six years old (it's even been discussed here) and it would have been nice to blow it out properly. London Grump (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    It's not "sockpuppetry" just because your CP account is under a different name. I really don't know why RWians readily eat up that nonsense from Karajou and TK. CP is a public website. Anyone in the world is invited to edit there. In turn, they can block anyone they please. It's a really simple bargain. Take it easy on yourselves for having CP accounts. You don't have to automatically accept some cranks' blame when you're not doing anything wrong. 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    Is it sockpuppetry if it's different personalities with different life histories? I'm quite proud of my flagship CP persona... London Grump (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    I have to admit that you gave us a good run for our money Ken. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    Why would it be sockpuppetry? You're invited to edit Conservapedia. It's that simple. It's not their business what story you tell. It's not their business who you are. Ken's persona is schizophrenic and you don't call that sockpuppetry. Heck, he's even got multiple personalities running the User:Conservative account by committee. 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    Fuck me, who pissed in your cornflakes, Mr Pedant? Like Humpty Dumpty, if I want to play my own multiple personalities against each other on Conservapedia for effect I can call them whatever I like. Shit, why am I even trying to justify myself? London Grump (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

23. Kill it with fire.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
24. I want us to grow, "to be a contenduh". I don't think focusing on "hehe, look at the retard" does us any good. so kill.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
25. Conservapedia? Never heard of it. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
26. It was fun while it lasted. --Sid (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
27. ^talk 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, it's probably time for a Main Page redesign. Highlight the portals, but add more specific ones like Creationism, Global Warming Denialism and Vaccine and Medicine Denialism (with fun circle logos, which we already probably have in nav templates). Pseudoscience is too vague. Make them more prominent (they're at the bottom of the page now:( ). Rid of Politics portal on Main (not mission centric enough.) ^talk 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
28. It's dead past the point anyone could care anymore. I say we take it out behind the barn and put it out of it's misery. Arcane (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Arcane
29. If I'm agreeing to this, you know CP's dead. Kill the links, but keep the pages for the die-hards. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
30. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
31. Wait, Conservapedia still exists? -Soviet Hologram God (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
32. Little late the party as usual but yeah, the time has come to finally put the old girl down and move on. -Tygrehart
33. Alas, poor Andy. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 02:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
34. Who cares?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
35. C®ackeЯ Ax with a biggish linkie poo to an historical version of the main page. 05:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
36. It makes me crazy it is still there! Durk Titanium (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
37. Remove from the main page. Don't kill it, just remove it it from its place of prominence on our site. ħuman 05:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
38. CONservapedia is waaaaaaaay past its prime. Keeping it in a prominent entry spot on this Wiki is more likely to turn people away than bring them here. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
39. It's deader than disco. It's deader than disco on eight-track. It couldn't be any deader even if Time were hailing it as the next big thing. ... of liberals? (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
40. It's kind of a waste to dedicate mainspace page to one dead site. Also it seems a little petty IMO. --Wykked Wytch (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

    You say "petty" as if that is a bad thing.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

41. Indeed.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Goat

1. Don't know that I'm quite there yet, definitely part of the way though. Tielec01 (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards deletion, however, perhaps we could place the really mind boggling statements/updates in the Clogs WIGO.Bobafan (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, add it to Clogs, that's a great idea. ħuman 05:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

+1 to Bobafan's suggestion Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And one more--Token Conservative (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea actually, WIGO CP entries are so rare these days they're hardly worth the page. But what do we do about the highly active talk page? Sophie^Wilder 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a CP project page? Could we make one?--Token Conservative (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Forum:Conservapedia? Sophie^Wilder 08:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Because no one ever goes to our Forums, I will encourage this--Token Conservative (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Main page navigation

This is what I was talking about above. Obviously it would be on one side of the Main page (some with CSS skillz could do that). I wouldn't DPL the articles, but put our best or most important articles in.

Discussion

Oh, and the rationale: Graphics are good. And we really don't link our important content from Main. ^talk 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. You have my support, which means you have the go-ahead. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 22:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That looks good, and makes enough sense. Can we put this to a vote? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The best thing to do is for people to attempt a couple different designs in a sandbox space fully implemented and we can iterate a bit on that and then vote with side-by-side comaprisons. Anyone with a bit of athestic skills and css ability want to play? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Would like to see different icons for global warming and denialism, but otherwise spot-on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The logo seems more appropriate for denialism than global warming, for whatever that's worth--Token Conservative (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Could it be appropriate to subsume GW within the broader topic of denialism? Our climate coverage isn't all that broad in itself. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actual user testing might be good once the designs have been narrowed down to a couple. Commercial sites sometimes show one interface to part of their users and another to the rest, then look at statistics on clicks etc. I don't know if RW's server software is sophisticated enough to do that, or indeed if it matters that much for a site like this. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have too much bluish-green color actually. We should differentiate them more with a more diverse palette. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 00:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Global warming has been a problem article for a long time. My opinion is that there should be a global warming denialism article (which would probably subsume global warming conspiracy theory; currently global warming denialism redirects to global warming) and a separate global warming article about the science (which would parallel creationism and evolution). Global warming is in the science category, which seems inappropriate since there is so little about the actual science. We have no icon for global warming. This bothers me tons because global warming denialism is a major pillar of modern anti-science. Our coverage is terrible. </rant> Main has a heck of a lot of CSS, which makes it hard for me to make a mock up quickly; I'm not sure a wiki table is good or bad for that. (And I wouldn't put it in denialism. The pseudosience category is too vague for my tastes on the Main page, if a casual reader doesn't know what it is. Denialism has the same problem. Again, global warming denialism is rampant. We should have a separate section. </rant2>) I'll be on vacation the next few days; I'm more than willing to work on it after that.) ^talk 01:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox is a start. I might swap WIGOs and this, but I'm not sure, and again, I need to look at the css. Anyway, see you all next week. ^talk 02:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know fuck all about CSS, so I wont even attempt to actually script a proposed mainpage, my thoughts:

• Put "community standards", "writing for", and "help pages" from being floating off to the side into the "About Rationalwiki" section
• Make an HTML guide and stick it in "About Rationalwiki" too
• Put the "About Rationalwiki" section as a banner stretching across the top of the mainpage
• Move "Participate in Rationalwiki" to where the "More featured content" is
• Put the "More Featured Content" where we currently have WIGO
• Put WIGO into "More Featured Content", rather than a distinct section

I'm not sure how important WIGO is to RW (in terms of it being a source of traffic to and around the site), but it seems to me that we should be displaying our great articles, rather than focusing on "RWians laughing at other people", which WIGO seems to break down to quite often. I'm also not a fan that WIGO has bright color, but "About RW" simply has light gray. It seems like that draws the eye to WIGO, rather than information about the site or its content.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea, in general. But the colors do suck. ħuman 05:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

get rid of the left/right side thing. Rows of shit that matters - mission, portals, featured page, all full width. ħuman 05:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the colours should be more varied and that we need a different logo for climate change (if that's going to be one of the portals which are linked to in the table). Spud (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot, and the icons will work really well - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what others have been saying, I think we should have a politics one. The creeping authoritiarianism and infiltration of pseudoscience into politics is something that needs covering. Sophie^Wilder 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if our politics pages are really all that good. That would be my major issue.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We'll just have to goodify some, then. Sophie^Wilder 08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Powder mentioned it in one of the last discussions about the direction of the site, but the user base seems primarily interested in science/pseudoscience, religion, and conspiracy theories, with a general lack of interest in politics and economics. That's kind of the problem: we want the articles, but no one seems very interested in maintaining them.--Token Conservative (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am very interested in seeing articles that develop the links between pseudoscience, woo or religion and politics -- creationist senators who sit on the science committee, elected officials who deny global warming, congressmen who say things about America as a Christian nation -- but I am beginning to believe that our default lefty orientation works against developing a broader editor base and readership. While the site was started as a response to "Conservapedia," it's the anti-rationality of that website, and not the "conservativeness" of it that was the intellectual driving force here. After all, "Conservapedia" is barely "conservative," in any meaningful sense of the word -- it's a radical hard-right project run by editors who commit every logical fallacy in the book. Most of them cannot read. By making this website a defacto lefty site, we've failed to engage with, and probably failed to even reach, important parts of the (American) public who don't share our party line but who do share important parts of the mission's goals. While you don't have to be a liberal to have issues with a creationist senator on the science committee or a global-warming denialist governor, we've framed it so that liberalism and rational approaches to policy-making go together. I think we'd do a better job at the mission if our partisanship wasn't so obvious. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should dial it back with the politics — although too far down that road lies balance fallacy territory, so we should just keep in mind that crankishness and opposition to science completely transcend political divides. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Color Options

Here are some ideas for color options. Discuss. ^talk 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I like B but that's because orange is my favourite colour. I suppose A is really the one that would look best on the Main Page of our Vector skin wiki, assuming there aren't going to be any other major changes to it. Spud (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would look better if the colors for the different topics were distinct, not different tones of the same (or similar) color. One from column A, one from column B, like that. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do they all have to be the same color? Creationism should be white, homeopathy yellow, aliens green, conspiracy theories orange, denialism sky blue, and logic black. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 03:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there should be variety. Also, which ones do we pick out of our forty or so portals? See the Template:Portal portal thing. I always hated the drive towards homogeniety, but we are sort of stuck with the lameness now. ħuman 04:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough on the color thing. I just fear it will look too incoherent. Or rainbow-esque. I think we pick the 6-9 portals which are most mission-centric. But I also think we should think carefully about our portals--are the representative of what we want? Do things need to be shifted around? my sandbox is a tentative mockup of what this might look like. ^talk 11:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the revised color think with roughtly what An American Nihilist suggested except not creationism white (too blah), instead black, and made logic dark brown. I included paranormal, but I'm not keen on other portals. And I included the wigos since they will likely be there. I changed the globes at Ghengis's suggestion. I'll probably work on this later in the week and then bring it up on Saloon bar. ^talk 23:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Global Warming

I am curious about people's thoughts on global warming. My post above:

“”Global warming has been a problem article for a long time. My opinion is that there should be a global warming denialismarticle (which would probably subsume global warming conspiracy theory; currently global warming denialism redirects to global warming) and a separate global warming article about the science (which would parallel creationism and evolution). Global warming is in the science category, which seems inappropriate since there is so little about the actual science. We have no icon for global warming. This bothers me tons because global warming denialism is a major pillar of modern anti-science. Our coverage is terrible. </rant> Main has a heck of a lot of CSS, which makes it hard for me to make a mock up quickly; I'm not sure a wiki table is good or bad for that. (And I wouldn't put it in denialism. The pseudosience category is too vague for my tastes on the Main page, if a casual reader doesn't know what it is. Denialism has the same problem. Again, global warming denialism is rampant. We should have a separate section. </rant2>)

Above someone said just fold it into denialism. I think that's a step backwards at RW; we should be encouraging people to work on things, not hiding behind our poor content. But I welcome others' opinions. ^talk 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

We used to link global warming denialism to global warming conspiracy theory, but that was changed. I'm totally up for putting it into a new template. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are only one part of denialism, which is the problem I see with it. Really, just rename global warming as global warming denialism, and let someone start a science-based global warming article, I say. ^talk 19:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's a possible icon.^talk 23:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the image -- but how would it look in red? (Because, y'know, hot things are red. Or something.) PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to jump the gun, but I went ahead moved it to global warming denialism and split some plain science material off into its own article on global warming. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Good. I like when people go ahead and do things instead of just talking about it (unless they're doing something I don't agree with, of course). Doctor Dark (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton's suggestions

• Put "community standards", "writing for", and "help pages" from being floating off to the side into the "About Rationalwiki" section
  • Help is on the left guide and is probably redundant. It's probably important to have the other two sections, but could be under About RationalWiki or Participate in RationalWiki.

• Make an HTML guide and stick it in "About Rationalwiki" too
  • I think there is one. They are very, very light gray. It may depend on your browser.

• Put the "About Rationalwiki" section as a banner stretching across the top of the mainpage
  • The problem I see with that is bullet points across a page would lead to a lot of white space.

• Move "Participate in Rationalwiki" to where the "More featured content" is
• Put the "More Featured Content" where we currently have WIGO
• Put WIGO into "More Featured Content", rather than a distinct section
  • I'm for combining "More Featured Content" with the WIGOs in some way. To be honest, the Main page really emphasizes the WIGOs much more than anything else.

^talk 19:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

My watchlist

Does not work. Why? ħuman 04:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess. Is it too ####ing long? Sophie^Wilder 10:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Technical support is a great page for this. ^talk 19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Ian. </sarcasm> ħuman 04:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Donations

Perhaps the goal could be reset higher (eg $3500)?

And - technical comment - 'What is the name of our webiste': shurely shome mishteak> 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Current target $600; current donations so far $531.16; another $600 puts the score at $3600. The maths seems odd (or should be 'total paid this year'). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. It's fixed now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the 'rules of the office' is to the effect that the casual passer by spots the mistake/solves the glitch straight off, however long you have spent on the original document. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The office has some strange rules. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed

I discovered this site, and was really looking forward to good quality information, real discussion of controversial topics, and a desire for the truth. Very quickly, however, I realised that this place has it's own dogmas, bias, hate and mockery of the "enemy", and lack of professionalism — the very things that plague Conservapedia (but thankfully not to the same extent). Please, shape up, and don't become Conservapedia's liberal brother. 212.179.126.110 (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're *this* close to making me drink. A long-standing issue on this website is our point of view, but it helps to provide specific examples. Any articles that you don't specifically like? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Go to Wikifarm of choice.

Set up wiki and a scattering of pages.

Wait for someone to join your party.

NB - should be 'its own dogmas' (possessive pronoun). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see that my criticism of this site were based on my own misconceptions about it's nature. Although I don't agree with all of them (such as the allowing of humour), I do like the authorisation of original research; anyway, these are the decided rules, so I won't argue with them unless I become a member. However there are still things that displease me. There seems to be a bit of racism to populations that tend to be conservative. For example here the title of the section seems to mock the accent of Southern America. I'm not from America, but it seems to me that such stigmatisation is common. This unfortunately leads people to have to try to loose their accent at any cost to be taken seriously (one example that comes to mind is Stephen Colbert). They didn't choose their accent, and the idea that any linguistic dialect is superior to another is absolute nonsense (see here aswell).

Thanks, 212.179.126.110 (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's a South Park joke, so take it up with them. Secondly, unless southerners are a race, you're using the word "racism" incorrectly. Yeah, there is often, at least in the northern and western parts of the US, a tendency to associate the south with ignorance. Though based on who they send to Congress it might not be entirely unjustified. That's nothing specific to us, however. It's kind of universal that if you want to do an impression of a stupid person you affect a southern accent, and for an intelligent person you do a British accent. DickTurpis (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a South Park reference. While I don't necessarily agree fully with perpetuating hurtful tropes like that, there is still the merit that it is exceedingly funny!

Here, read a discussion we've recently had about how South Park perpetuates hurtful tropes and how while some of us don't necessarily agree with that practice, one can see how it is funny: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:South_Park_Republicans (mostly in second half of page)

Again, not condoning such behavior, but I can see why people like to use it. Nullahnung (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, apparently The South is now a race!

Seriously though, we respect government organizations like NASA and (due to the location of its facilities) a good amount of its workforce have non-Northern accents. We wouldn't dare to call them stupid. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My usual comment to this type of criticism: Why not sign up for an account and work the fix the problems? ^talk 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Vaccine hysteria-->denialism

ATM we have "vaccine hysteria" as a featured article, but clicking on the title takes you to "vaccine denialism." Could someone with more technoskillz than a bowl of cornflakes (ie not me) fix it please? Sophie^Wilder 10:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

vaccine denialism is a silly title, though--"Shut up, Brx." 11:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but it's the one we're probably stuck with. Sophie^Wilder 17:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Alaska article

The Alaska article is inaccurate. I am new to rational wiki and just created an account about 10 minutes ago, so please tell me if i am doing something wrong. At Kiska, the Alaskan island that was invaded by the Japanese in 1942, this sites article said that 300 Americans were killed retaking it. this is not true. the island was abandoned by the Japanese several days before the invasion, no casualties we taken by american forces as a direct result of face to face combat. About 200 Americans died due to booby traps and the Alaskan weather, which as a former resident of Alaska i can tell you is quite punishing, but none as a result of direct engagement with Japanese troops i apologize if i posted this in the wrong section of the site, but i felt i should correct this inaccuracy.^{— Unsigned, by: Solidarity1917 / talk / contribs}

I corrected the page as you said. For future reference, when making relatively minor edits like this one, don't be afraid to put them in yourself. Also, posting on the talk page of the relevant article, rather than this one, is preferred. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

idea to make the page a little more topical in November 2013

Say something like,
"Last week, the Philippines were hit with the biggest storm in (recent history). Could the increasingly warmer Pacific waters from where the typhoon formed be due to Global Warming? The deniers say no. Read here and decide for yourself."
Talk to Civic Cat 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Should I replace the current featured article with this—while it's still relevant?Talk to Civic Cat 21:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, cuz I was thinking that (a) it's been in the news a lot, and (b) there's a lot of stuff here about global warming denialism, and (c) presumably we want RW to continue to grow, and this could help in the popularity department without comprimising core values. But hey, if you guys want a re-hash, who am I to challange it? Huh.Talk to Civic Cat 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Could the increasingly warmer Pacific waters from where the typhoon formed be due to Global Warming? --> has anyone with any expertise actually made the argument you want to make? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Very well, you don't like the language. I'll read your linked article later. One of us is missing a point. Fughetaboutit.Talk to Civic Cat 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Storm expert says climate change may have played a big role in Typhoon Haiyan after all (PRI).Talk to Civic Cat 23:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fucking stupid Santa hat

I see we are kowtowing to the Christians (Or their babies) once again. This is so fucking embarrassing. ħuman 07:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, who woke up the Grinch? PsyGremlin^Parlez! 09:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Santa hat has become a symbol for the Christmas of presents and food more than the Christmas of Christ it seems.Nullahnung (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I love the Santa Hat. If only because of the irony of RationalWiki having it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I love the fact that it's digital, so its removal leaves scant trace, or none at all for those lucky enough to live in the eternal now. It could be far worse, as anyone would know who has had to pull tinsel out of a cat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Has Santa been seen as a religious figure (the historical St. Nick aside) within the lifetimes of any of us on the wiki, or even our parents? Does he figure into any Christian rituals, or appear in the Bible? Do Church signs exhort people to keep the Santa in Christmas? I submit that at least in modern form he (and his trappings, i.e. the hat) is as secular as the Easter Bunny, and just fine on the wiki. Although I do note that using the Modern skin you don't see the brain logo at all, so maybe objectors might use that to save their delicate sensibilities. --Kels (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel that we should worship Santa.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory--"Shut up, Brx." 18:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Human just needs his bottle to settle him down. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

He posted at 7:30, isn't he supposed to start by 6? His supplier's falling down on the job. --Kels (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Every fucking year...Aceⁱ⁹ 22:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The drunk human meme was never cute. 23:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a meme? --Kels (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Site-wide tradition. ^postate 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

why not something Christmasy for those who aren't really feeling it?

(similar to my above suggestion)
'tis the season.Talk to Civic Cat 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry

... it's just an ancient midwinter festival repackaged, and will be over this time next week (for those of us on the Gregorian calendar at least). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we will be obliged to keep the silly hat up until the first week of January, if past precedent is anything to go by. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps add 'Christmas decorations and tinsel' to the normal logo, or have it flashing different colours? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

'Something like' the sparkle effect on 'CTRL+D' in Word.

Or a slightly more perky hat rather than the present 'raddled after the party' appearance. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else like reading the question evolution blog for a good laugh?

(Moved to Conservapedia Talk)

Don't worry 2

...you can now play 'spot the first Easter Egg.' 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Precedent in Missionality Arguments?

I'm sure most of us know about the role of precedent when making legal arguments, but I'm wondering (and this may or may not be a stupid question) about how arguments from precedent are viewed on this site with respect to whether or not an article is on-mission. For example, let's say someone wanted to create an article about online dating websites (as in collectively). When the inevitable question of whether or not it's on-mission comes up, the author may cite things such as the PUA material and other woo used by some of those sites as on-mission material. In addition, the author proceeds to cite the existing article "Social networking websites" as precedent for its inclusion on the basis that the topic of and approaches taken by the articles are similar. While the first argument concerning woo and PUA stuff is generally par for the course on this wiki, how would the second argument be viewed? Someone may bring up that the cited article has had potentially unresolved missionality disputes of its own, but how does the RW community view the concept of precedent with respect to missionality in general? Accountless Procrastinator 107.20.248.254 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Mobocracy rules. And can change its mind at any time. That's all that matters. ^talk 01:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Captcha questions

As the library setup won't let me access the saloon bar:

More of a dialogue should be allowed 'Be my friend' should accept Yes, no, maybe, only if 'you are being good etc, and 'Spin doctor' Malcolm Tucker/Peter Mandelson/washing machine repairer, and so on. 171.33.197.73 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Errors

Hi, I've found some problems with the code of one of the templates here. Can someone please go over to Template talk:MainPageRedesign to check them? Jc86035 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Fundraiser

This morning the fundraiser was at 71%. I made a small donation. This afternoon, it's at 70%. What did I do, aaaaaaah! Marasmusine (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're noticing a symptom of caching. Do a hard refresh and you should see a current version of the resource. 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's back, good luck with the fundraiser! Marasmusine (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you donate in Bitcoin? ^gnostic 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I used Flanian Pobble Beads. Marasmusine (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Such much?

Depending upon the page the amount of funding varies widely $4995, $4275, assorted figures in between (plus change).

Confusing. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Caching. When we update the main it may take a bit to transcend to all users. Zero (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

'Enlightening RW-ians' ignorance'

As the goal has now been reached, should the target figure be updated? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been updated (I've seen the updating edit), but the update isn't showing up for me for some reason... maybe it's just the caching again. Nullahnung (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hit F5. Or maybe CTRL-F5. ^talk 22:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(reset) Still $6k of $6k. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Anybody seen this?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RationalWiki. I think it's pretty funny personally. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat Simulator

I think many of you would appreciate this: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/03/goat-simulator-preview-goat-of-the-year/. Goat! --Spaceman98 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

More amusing is the story of how they decided that would be the company's next project. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor snark

The logo should be Help us double last year#'#s record of $3500 - and in what base is 3500x2=6000? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I think the line is an encouragement for donations to reach $7000, not a reflection on this year's goal. You're correct on the lack of an apostrophe though. - Grant (Talk) 16:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Your morning chuckle (rbutr)

I have the rbutr plug-in installed for Chrome. For those that don't know what it is, it is a plug-in designed for use by skeptics. It displays a pop-up message whenever you visit a page which has a rebuttal. I have already used it to great effect in dismantling an "Organic" gish gallop (home-grown bullshit), but I popped by the RationalWiki homepage today, and there was a pop-up that said there was nine rebuttals to the page.

Laughing, I opened up the list. I shall transcribe it for you.

Rational wiki - It Just Bugs Me! itjustbugsme.com/forums/discussion/5684/rational-wiki/p1

is this the best they got? - Anti-English / Anti-White racism and prejudice - Anglo-Saxon Foundation englisc-gateway.com/bbs/topic/26741-is-this-the-best-they-got/

Irrational Wiki -What?? | Emma the Emo's Emo Musings emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/irrational-wiki-what/

The Problem With Rational Wiki - Less Wrong lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/

RationalWiki Showing It’s Anything But Again | grey lining greylining.com/2012/12/15/rationalwiki-showing-its-anything-but-again/

RationalWiki - A Storehouse of Knowledge astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/RationalWiki

RationalWiki - Metapedia en.metapedia.org/wiki/RationalWiki

Islamo-Criticism: RationalWiki on the Irrationality of Islamophobia Watch islamo-criticism.blogspot.com/2012/03/rationalwiki-on-irrationality-of..

RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us : General Discussions debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=320

Anti-white rascism, neo-nazis, creationists, and "Islamophobes". Couldn't ask for better rebuttals!

I love RationalWiki. -Mackinz (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I take that sort of thing as an endorsement. ^pathetic 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you've pissed off Islamophobes, then in all likelihood, you've actually done something wrong as they tend to be rational. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That said, there are - evidently, by the above - many examples of RW being "criticised" (quote-marks intentional) but very few rave reviews that I can find. Does this say anything? ^sshole 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rbutr is for finding those that disagree with you enough to rebut your arguments. Of course there wouldn't be "rave" reviews on the list. They do exist, I'm sure, but not here.-Mackinz (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean in general. I've engaged in casual self-googling since about 2008 for this and it's full of idiots going "wahhhh!!! RATIONALWIKI disagrees with me, why doe they call it RATIONA wiki?!!?!?" but relatively few positive reviews. Though we get a lot of passive traffic (as Trent calls it) which I suppose is just a more quiet but meaningful endorsement. ^postate 15:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Passive traffic means lurkers, yes? A fellow with legitimate doctoral expertise in neurology was visiting once, and saw the brain in brackets logo on my screen. "I love RationalWiki!" were pretty much his exact words. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A trend that I've noticed might have something to do with RW not getting many rave reviews as opposed to complaints. I've noticed rationalwiki likes to talk negatively about a lot of things but rarely praises anything (the few that I've found I could probably count on my fingers: Atheism FAQ, a page about science, some essays, fanboy page about George Carlin, stuff like that).

Negativity breeds negativity while positivity tends to breed positivity (though there is a counter reaction in each case of course), so it should come as no surprise that the rave reviews are few and the complaints are many, because the same pattern appears on RW itself. Nullahnung (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely that. ^moral 16:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I like to think of the wiki being used as a tacit endorsement. Sure, it's not a rave review, but this wiki is pretty often cited in the skeptic communities I am a part of. -Mackinz (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Try Icerocket, Armondikov. I check it about once a week, there's almost always someone being nice & someone being nasty. Scream!! (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Add also the classic link for looking for feedback. Use the search tools to limit the time to the last week or so. Unfortunately, doesn't catch everything.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed rbutrs "rbutls" of RationalWiki before and I am somewhat familiar with the service. I've considered writing a RW essay detailing why I think it sucks and posting it as a "rbutl" on their main page, but it will be too much work. :)

The interesting thing about those links is that most, if not all of them have been posted by the same user, and given they other contributions they seem to be doing some kind of "seeding" with controversial content - e.g. if the two sites A and B are opposed, they will add A as a rebuttal to B and vice versa. Chances are this is either someone involved in the service or a bizzarely dedicated troll individual.

If the browser plug-in allows you to post links, add a link to RationalWiki:Pissed at us - this will sum up most of the "rebuttals". :D --ZooGuard (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and their site allows you to see a site's "rebuttals" without using the plug-in: http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?requestType=showLinksByFromPage&fromPageId=1913615 --ZooGuard (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In other languages

I see there's a RationalWiki in russian. What would be the process to create another language? I'd love to start a brazilian portuguese version of this wiki.~epix^{Say What?} 04:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You can write articles in new languages in the main space for now - see RationalWiki:Languages. e.g. Loi de Poe gets a few hits - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!~epix^{Say What?} 00:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There's loads of RWish stuff in Brazil. The Unknown Power by Guy Lyon Playfair is truly...erm...interesting. Sophie^Wilder 10:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

True. This Chico Xavier guy is quite famous here, and even Catholics believe his paranormal claims, which is quite contradictory. Maybe I'll make an article on him someday. We've also unfortunately got Olavo de Carvalho...~epix^{Say What?} 13:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Exopedia?

What is this http://www.exopaedia.org/index.php? Is it a site of genuine True believers with a bizarrely extensive cosmology, or am I mistaking UFO fiction for stuff people genuinely believe? --50.106.13.237 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

John Oliver

Given his generally sublime coverage of a good few topics covered by RW, how does this man not have his own page yet? Lola Lazerface (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You can make a case for a John Oliver article on the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:To_do_list , then see what people think. Nullahnung (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Replacing an account

Is it acceptable to register a new account if one stops using their old account, like on Wikipedia? —ShadowFan-X ♦ 16:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much - we have some users who have been here years but change accounts every now and then just 'cos they feel like it - though note we don't have a rule constraining people to pretend you aren't the same person - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of shit not covered on this wiki

Come on guys and gals, pull your head out of your collective asses and start making more articles related to pop culture (as long as it relates to the goals of RationalWiki). There are plenty of movies, T.V. shows, video games, etc. that could be bashed in an extremely scathing article. Call of Duty, Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park (not the entire fucking Comedy Central), Urban Dictionary, the list is fucking endless. I like your website, but I'm tired of reading the same shit every time I visit!^{— Unsigned, by: 151.213.194.84 / talk / contribs} 19:39, 27 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Um. No. This page explains that this site is about pseudoscience and authoritarianism. Sorry it's not maximally entertaining. Ikanreed (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What related to pop culture would you have us write about? Our mission is to counteract anti-science bullshit. If you want information on pop culture I would recommend Wikipedia or TV Tropes. I suppose there is some place for things like Elvis faking his death or Jim Morrison moving to Africa, but for the most part pop culture would be off mission. Unlike a lot of wikis *cough, conservapedia, cough Citizendium, cough, New World Encyclopedia* we don't have a problem with wikipedia, we have a problem with pseudoscience.Samstr (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of room for pop culture, when it invites ludicrous rubbish. c.f. Tupac Shakur - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't complain - find a means of creating Pop(goes the weasel)Culture(Vulture)RationalWiki. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Bill Nye promoting a thing that about half of skeptics deem to be woo and the other half deem to be "plausible" to "maybe plausible" or something basically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZo1GhaTVuk

It's somewhat old news and I am nowhere near sufficiently science-literate to make a judgment, but according to a surprising number of skeptics' websites Nye is pushing baloney with this.

Any input? A Google RW search didn't turn up anything about this "ionator". Lola Lazerface (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heyup Lola, d'you wanna move this to the Saloon bar? Cos that's where it belongs. Scream!! (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

As it is traditional to take down Christmas decorations on January 6, should 'Merry Christmas' be removed from the 'recent changes' page? (Besides the first Easter eggs are already in the shops.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Christmas day is Jan 7th in the Orthodox church; so no: it shouldn't be removed. Scream!! (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yeah, it's because of the Russians, and it's nice that RationalWiki remembered that other cultures exist.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

'For those celebrating Christmas on 25 December...' was omitted as obvious.

'New Year New Rationalwiki'/'Living up to Rationalwiki-improving New Year's Resolutions' sounds better. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So obviously for the Russian readership we need the Christmas brain with a blue hat - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* When I wrote "Russia" above, I though people where going to click on that link first. Anyway, it's because of "Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem", as well as the Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Good luck somehow representing all of that in the logo. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FATHER FROST USES BLUE!! and that's all I know about Russian Christmas - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

... and it will soon be Christmas again. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ron Maimon

Hi guys, I think you should check out an internet personality called Ron Maimon. Just googleing his name is enough. He wrote huge walls of text on every thinkable physics/math/philosophy/religious/computerscience page on the internet. You can look for most of his stuff on Quora and all stackexchange sites, for example physics exchange, math exchange and so on, even on Wikipedia with a HUGE number of posts/answers. He got banned on all those sites, and every time it was a big deal. Maybe he deserves an article ? He is a bit similar to Lubos Motl, he also has no university position. Here is a taste of his personality: http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/976/physics-ses-inability-to-deal-with-users-who-are-highly-persistent-have-kook-b He was also a well known user on the usenet, which you can check by reading the Google archives. His texts are all over the internet, it's amazon how much he wrote on every possible science topic you can imagine. And he is also a bit crazy (science good, rest is bad just like Motl) since he believs in some conspiracy theories and he has the attitude that insulting people will help his cause. --85.181.221.39 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been shying away from documenting barely notable internet personalities for accidental slander related reasons. If posting too much on the internet and getting banned for it is his only crime, it's probably off-mission. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No we haven't been shying away from that. Post relevant material. Who cares if someone is barely notable if in your estimation they're on mission. Just don't defame them. RW is not defamatory or a hate site. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Defamation is a lot easier for people who aren't well-known to the public for a host of reasons. 1. Facts are harder to verify. 2. It's easier for them to make the case that rationalwiki is uniquely responsible for spreading false and hostile information. 3. Less editors have an active interest in the person and thus won't be monitoring the page. I don't disagree that if they're on mission, do it right, rather than don't do it all. But "posting on the internet and believing in conspiracies" to me, isn't a sufficient cause. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's not like he doesn't get attention. For example he had a super long discussion with Geerard 't Hooft (noble price winner and physics legend) on physics exchange. Just look up some of his contributions on this site. But I understand that if he isn't notable, then you don't want an article.--85.181.221.39 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not ED. But if you have some convincing reason to write about him, there's a to do page where you can list it. He'd have to be pretty amazingly dickish to be at Motl standard - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Frequent lurker here. Ron Maimon is a fascinating guy, and one of the few people with really cranky ideas who can sometimes admit that he's wrong. I'd love to see an article on him, and had been considering writing one myself - I think he's more notable and coverage of him is more on-mission than some of the obscure conspiracy theorists we have articles on. 207.239.59.178 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the starter of this topic. Ok good, but how should we start? He is literally all over the internet. Just do a Google search like this ,"science/philosophy topic" "Ron Maimon", and you get a text from him. Do you have any idea?--85.180.219.223 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ron Maimon is a former Harvard physics grad student and frequent crank, notable for advocating cold fusion and false-flag conspiracy theories"? Talk about his prolific and often-helpful Stack Exchange posts mixed with cold fusion advocacy, maybe a bit on his time at Quora before he asked the site to ban him. 207.239.59.178 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm ok good. But I think we should focus more on the real theories he has. For example he has some theories about the consistency of set theory (measuable sets) and he also thinks that the work of Shakespear were written by some other guy, he claims something like a sigma 5 evidence for it or that logical positivism is the only philosophy in science and he knows A LOT about the history of physics because he read all the papers. Then also theories about biology and computerscience. Then several things about stringtheory and quantumfieldtheory which might be over might head. But I see what I can do. And of course also the absurd stuff he says.--2.165.185.181 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I made an account.--Nebukadnezar (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)