Talk:Main Page

From Rationalwikiwki

Very nice logo, reminds me of somewhere. I'd stick around but I'm due to screw up another surgery. PALMD 08:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, there is a certain familiarity. ...--Bobbing up 08:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Might I suggest the Liberapedia RW logo?--Bobbing up 10:06, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Image:LP Rational.png

I second that choice. Can we haz permission? Human 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Kewl. Logo too wide for the space it has to fit in. Maybe crop off the outer brackets? Human 19:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)



I have copied and edited some material about the purpose of this Wiki from a post at RationalWiki.--Bobbing up 10:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)


Maybe the kind folks at RW would offer to host this metawiki if someone buys the domain name? Human 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Am I the only one ...

Who realises that the label is mispelt? Or is that a joke? --

I think its a joke. I think. -- 21:38, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I don't think so...--Ryan 22:44, 27 December 2007 (EST)
It's funny whether its intentional or not.--Bobbing up 04:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Personally, I see nothing that needs to be changed here. --AKjeldsen 09:48, 28 December 2007 (EST)

install pleez?

I don't know who runs this thing, but can they install the "choose/option" tag things somehow? Human 19:38, 29 December 2007 (EST)


I was gonna wandalize this, but I just noticed the good guys own it. Helios 01:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Today's activities

I think we need a separate article and not just something on Susan's page. But things seem to be still going down and it's hard to know where its going to go. So what angle? And what name? I wouldn't want to use "Susan's departure" in the hope she will come back. We've already got one "fuck" article so I'm not sure about that either. But anything written now might be out of date by this evening anyway.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 13:45, 14 March 2008 (EST)

I, too, am at a loss what to name it. In her article I resorted to snark and called it "SusanG takes her ball and goes home". --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 14:07, 14 March 2008 (EST)
I think this had died the death now, but the debate went in so many y directions that it's hard to define the damn thing in a punchy way. Any ideas Hans?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:42, 15 March 2008 (EST)
By the way, it went on longer than 90 mins. It started at talk:main with Marcus Cicero's complaint about the "talk to a Mormon" according to item, which very early on had a brief pissing match between him and Susan. My/human's "lecture" came many hours later, and I think by then she was already doing some auto-dismantling. (changing her user page to say "castle" and no more, etc.) humanbe in 14:59, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Well yes, the whole affair started as you say, but it was a hell of a lot longer than 90 mins before all the waves stopped. However it's my impression that it wasn't initially started by a post of Susan's. She just supported the Mormon post and then MS decided to to start using unparliamentary language. Later you decided to issue a reproof to Susan which might perhaps have been better sent privately and things started to come apart.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:18, 15 March 2008 (EST)
You really have to go check the histories, FF. The MC/Susan flap started her packing up. Long before my reproof, she had reduced her user page to saying only "castle" and had withdrawn from discussion. People even made jokes about the castle thing - see "rook" and o-o-o, above the reproof. I would say we need to look at about four places - the history of her user and talk pages, the history of the Mormon post discussion, and Susan's contribs, to get a handle on the order things happened and who was "involved". humanbe in 15:51, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Ok, but our sequences are similar aren't they? I have MS's action before yours, though I admit that the implication of my post is that her departure was subsequent to your post. If this is in error then I retract it.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:43, 15 March 2008 (EST)
How about calling it The "Tourette's attack episode". Wonderfully snarky.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:25, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Good title... keep it in mind for next something similar occurs! humanbe in 15:26, 17 March 2008 (EST)
"90 minutes" sounded punchier :-) Honestly, my impression was that it was immediately after your reproof Susan went nutcake, so I marked it as the "start", admittedly arbitrarily. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 20:33, 15 March 2008 (EST)

May I suggest the "Big Juju in the Sky incident" for a title? And that we discuss it there? I'm going to paste some relevant data into its talk page now, I think I'm too close to the situation to be a good author though. humanbe in 18:21, 16 March 2008 (EST)

New Main Page

I made a new main page. User:Ryan/Main Page. Hope you like --Ryan 00:55, 15 March 2008 (EST)

So you did. A few tweaks and I think it is ready for pasting in. Balance the two sides, and perhaps start WIGO RW? humanbe in 01:02, 15 March 2008 (EST)
While I have not always (or perhaps ever) been a fan of Ryan's, I really want to say that his work on the mainpage is absolutely fantastic. Well done Ryan, and thank you for your efforts. That said, I'm almost embarrassed to make a suggestion. What about repeating the RWW signature orange color somewhere in the mainpage?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:10, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Ah, ah, ah. Why does this look like a real wiki now. 14:37, 15 March 2008 (EST)

FF, I'll see if I can do something to that effect. humanbe in 14:37, 15 March 2008 (EST)
That was more orange than I intended - I only was trying to color the "borders". It didn't preview the way it looks now. humanbe in 14:52, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Ah, I see, it wasn't my fault. Btw, the "orange" in question is #F2A500. humanbe in 14:54, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Um that was my fault. I can revert if you want. 14:54, 15 March 2008 (EST)

It's ok, I already did, and tried out what I was doing. Do you folks think the header boxes should be orange, too? humanbe in 14:57, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Well I liked it (drew attention to the headers and complimented to borders). But wtv. 15:00, 15 March 2008 (EST)
First off, I'd like to mention that this is the third fourth edit conflict I've had this afternoon Weird on RWW. Anyway. Yes, the idea is good, but (and I'm letting my feminine side out here) are there any "pastel" oranges we can use for the header boxes?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:04, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Sure, there are 64,000,000 colors ;). So, use the logo orange for the borders and a lighter version for the header backgrounds? Should be easy... humanbe in 15:48, 15 March 2008 (EST)

I tried that out. Opinions? humanbe in 15:55, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Nice, (actually very nice) but is there any way to make it more edgy?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:45, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks! Can you tell me what you mean by "edgy"? You mean high-contrast colors? Pictures of nekkid people? Blinking text in MS comic sans? Let me know and I'll try to accomplish it. humanbe in 17:09, 15 March 2008 (EST)
Well, maybe it's a little bit too nice. We're a rather "in your face" sort of place and maybe we should have something more aggressive. Sadly, my knowledge of color combinations isn't at the same standard as my ideas.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:45, 15 March 2008 (EST)
OK, I think I get what you mean. More pepper, less salt ;) I'll play around and see if something comes up. humanbe in 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EST)


Make me an admin! No? Ok... MarcusCicero 14:06, 15 March 2008 (EST)

You really need to petition User:Admin about that. Initially he promoted promoted RW sysops but more recently people who have made significant contributions to the site. Perhaps you should work at the site for a while longer before making your request to him? On the other hand "Admin" lives in a cloud of secrecy and does not explain his decisions, so your appeal may prosper anyway.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:27, 15 March 2008 (EST)


On a whim, I registered another RationalWikiWiki with ScribbleWiki (, another free host for wikis. I know it is way too late for you all to be willing to do so, but I just wanted to put this out there: are you all willing to move to that site?

  • The latest version of MediaWiki, with all of the extensions that doesn't have (i.e. functioning reference tags, math tags, extended user preferences, logs that aren't half-assed, compatible with parser functions, etc.).
  • An owner who would actually be around on a daily basis.
  • No Captcha.
  • No typo in the url :-)
  • All contributors here would retain their sysopships. And I would probably have to give Human allpowerz, out of necessity :-)
  • No checkuser (I am not sure if it can actually be removed, but I will not allow anyone to have it.)


  • Pages moved there will lose their entire history.
  • Confusion across the site during transition.
  • The owner would be me :-)

Also note WikiWikiWeb rates ScribbleWiki 4 stars, but only 2 stars[1]. More info on ScribbleWiki, including technical details and features, here.
Your thoughts? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 06:39, 16 March 2008 (EST)

"And I would probably have to give Human allpowerz, out of necessity" - you're joking,of course! — Unsigned, by: Warty / talk contribs

Reconsidering... stewardship is just "oversight/siteowner" and bureaucrat is, well, bureaucrat. So no, it will not be necessary. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 14:22, 16 March 2008 (EST)
Why bother? And I am around on a daily basis --Admin 14:34, 16 March 2008 (EST)
Apologies, then. We rarely see you edit and you are not particularly chatty, thus it appears you are never here. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 15:57, 16 March 2008 (EST)
I would like to add that this is not about me. This is about the wiki. I would be happy to maintain the current power structure, to de-steward and de-bureaucrat myself and hand the keys to Admin. I will not pretend I wouldn't experience an ego boost by you all agreeing to move, but it would be less of an "I have total power on the new wiki" than a "you all liked my proposal" ego boost. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EST)

Well - like you said, it would fix the damn url. And what "history" do we have to preserve here exactly. 16:56, 16 March 2008 (EST)

I was referring to any past revisions of pages. Such as for this page. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 19:40, 16 March 2008 (EST)
Overall, I think it might be a good idea. Fixing the typo would be nice, and craptcha is tiresome. And real "ref" tags would be really nice. Can the entire wiki be copied there in one fell swoop? User sub pages and all? Because if not the effort might not be worth it. humanbe in 19:59, 16 March 2008 (EST)
Not in one fell swoop. We would have to do it one namespace at a time (instructions here). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:12, 16 March 2008 (EST)
You can Export as many Categories as you like at one go complete with edit history and then re-import them with all their baggage. Anon 05:48, 17 March 2008 (EST)
Sorry, checking with this wiki, you have to export the individual pages, but you can export the history.

Special:Export should be used for any moves� worth reiterating. -- 16:11, 17 March 2008 (EST)

Why Bother?

"Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes the following:

  1. Analyzing and refuting the [[anti-science]] movement, ideas and people.
  2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of [[crank]] ideas.
  3. Explorations of [[authoritarianism]] and [[fundamentalism]]."

Count the number of edits over the past time period (you choose) and see how many are actually directed towards the above purpose(s). Most of the action on RW is one (or more) of:

  1. Human correcting grammar
  2. Bohdan being stupid
  3. Human amending layout
  4. Persons responding/encouraging Bohdan's stupidity
  5. Picking up the stupidity of CP (not hard to do)
  6. Human correcting spelling
  7. General "humour"

RW has moved far from its stated purpose and has become a social club for a few insomniacs.

It is a good place to practice Wiki syntax though and it does save the trouble of scanning CP's "Recent changes".

Anon 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EST)

I dub thee 'Sourpuss'. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:59, 16 March 2008 (EST)
True though, isn't it? Anon 23:01, 16 March 2008 (EST)
Indeed. Additionally, those who are true to the wiki's purpose (such as Dark Matter Glaucopis and EVDebs) do not talk as much, and thus have less power to influence the direction of the wiki. Shame. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:16, 16 March 2008 (EST)
Although Anon forgot that every couple of weeks a new article gets written that is "on mission" (making RW more like a sloppily-run weekly magazine, where the consumers also get to see all the office pranks that went on while one lousy column was prepared for syndication), that's a pretty good analysis. Why isn't the content in this section an article yet? humanbe in 00:12, 17 March 2008 (EST)
Also, Once every week or two, some talk page comments results in an 8,000 word discussion. These usually involve religion, and might be considered the "Best of RationalWiki". humanbe in 15:21, 17 March 2008 (EST)
Personal tools