User talk:Hans Johnson
From Rationalwikiwki
(→Dates) |
(→Dates) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:I came after RWW dating system was implemented, so I haven't had much of an opportunity to express my opinion on it. I am opposed to it. The system is confusing, pointless, and a failed attempt at creating an inside joke. Only the four people who regularly edit here get it. Our dating system has no purpose if people are just going to look up the "real" date in a table anyways. {{User:Hans Johnson/sigsubst}} 18:38, 7 March 2008 (EST) | :I came after RWW dating system was implemented, so I haven't had much of an opportunity to express my opinion on it. I am opposed to it. The system is confusing, pointless, and a failed attempt at creating an inside joke. Only the four people who regularly edit here get it. Our dating system has no purpose if people are just going to look up the "real" date in a table anyways. {{User:Hans Johnson/sigsubst}} 18:38, 7 March 2008 (EST) | ||
::FF: If it were I, I'd build a table with 4 or 6 columns, and use excel to populate with "real dates" and their corresponding "RWW date". Then paste it in. HJ: I also agree with you. ''If'' it could be automated, it would be cool, but I suspect we don't have the extensions we'd need (I could do it in 2 minutes over at RW, but the code doesn;t work here). Also, kind of agreeing with HJ, the conversion is bizarrely unrelated to anything. having May 22 be +1 and May 21 be -1 (1 BCE, as it were), woudl have made sense. Anyway, it's not "my" site, and I've tried to use RWW dates when I can, don't mind looking them up, etc. So I'll let FF mull this over for a bit. Let me know if you want me to make such a table, or if you decide just to use the Gregorian calendar ;) {{User:Human/sig}} 21:13, 7 March 2008 (EST) | ::FF: If it were I, I'd build a table with 4 or 6 columns, and use excel to populate with "real dates" and their corresponding "RWW date". Then paste it in. HJ: I also agree with you. ''If'' it could be automated, it would be cool, but I suspect we don't have the extensions we'd need (I could do it in 2 minutes over at RW, but the code doesn;t work here). Also, kind of agreeing with HJ, the conversion is bizarrely unrelated to anything. having May 22 be +1 and May 21 be -1 (1 BCE, as it were), woudl have made sense. Anyway, it's not "my" site, and I've tried to use RWW dates when I can, don't mind looking them up, etc. So I'll let FF mull this over for a bit. Let me know if you want me to make such a table, or if you decide just to use the Gregorian calendar ;) {{User:Human/sig}} 21:13, 7 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :::2008 RWW date is actually January 1st 2008 RL date, if I understand the system correctly, so it's not ''entirely'' detached from reality. I don't really mind the system as it is, but then again, I'm used to dealing with obscure calendars on a regular basis, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 21:23, 7 March 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 02:23, 8 March 2008
I welcome myself. --Hans Johnson 16:56, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Contents |
Vandalism?
No, I think not. I choose not to conform to your petty and mortal impositions of the nature of my art. Why must you impose your so-called 'moderation', the assertion of an objective truth where there is truly none, here, may I ask? Such hypocrisy, such disdain for fine culture, it's no surprise that society is going to the proverbial Alsatians. Oberkommando NeuGwenson 19:29, 25 February 2008 (EST)
The
I've got no particular problem with your removing the article. Actually that's ambiguous isn't it? How about I've got no particular problem with your removing the "The"? But that's inelegant. Blast. Anyway, you get the idea. My question is why? What's wrong with the "The"?--FalseFlagFlag Me 15:58, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- It is common practice to drop "the" from names, especially events. Only book titles get away with it. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 16:39, 29 February 2008 (EST)
RationalWiki article
I seem to have messed up our rationalWiki article when fixing some pagemove vandalism the other day. It now redirects to itself. I just tried to restore an earlier version but it didn't appear to work. Do you think you could get your hans on it? Thanks.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:37, 5 March 2008 (EST)
- I shall try. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 20:46, 5 March 2008 (EST)
- Fixed. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 20:48, 5 March 2008 (EST)
- Great. Thanks for that.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:28, 6 March 2008 (EST)
- Fixed. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 20:48, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Dates
Using RWW dating is very difficult, due to a lack of references. Sine we probably won't ever manage to make something automatic, can we at least build a table that converts the few hundred dates since RW1 was founded? What do you think? humanbe in 18:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- I agree. How would one create such a thing?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 18:17, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- I came after RWW dating system was implemented, so I haven't had much of an opportunity to express my opinion on it. I am opposed to it. The system is confusing, pointless, and a failed attempt at creating an inside joke. Only the four people who regularly edit here get it. Our dating system has no purpose if people are just going to look up the "real" date in a table anyways. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 18:38, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- FF: If it were I, I'd build a table with 4 or 6 columns, and use excel to populate with "real dates" and their corresponding "RWW date". Then paste it in. HJ: I also agree with you. If it could be automated, it would be cool, but I suspect we don't have the extensions we'd need (I could do it in 2 minutes over at RW, but the code doesn;t work here). Also, kind of agreeing with HJ, the conversion is bizarrely unrelated to anything. having May 22 be +1 and May 21 be -1 (1 BCE, as it were), woudl have made sense. Anyway, it's not "my" site, and I've tried to use RWW dates when I can, don't mind looking them up, etc. So I'll let FF mull this over for a bit. Let me know if you want me to make such a table, or if you decide just to use the Gregorian calendar ;) humanbe in 21:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- 2008 RWW date is actually January 1st 2008 RL date, if I understand the system correctly, so it's not entirely detached from reality. I don't really mind the system as it is, but then again, I'm used to dealing with obscure calendars on a regular basis, so... ;-) --AKjeldsen 21:23, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- FF: If it were I, I'd build a table with 4 or 6 columns, and use excel to populate with "real dates" and their corresponding "RWW date". Then paste it in. HJ: I also agree with you. If it could be automated, it would be cool, but I suspect we don't have the extensions we'd need (I could do it in 2 minutes over at RW, but the code doesn;t work here). Also, kind of agreeing with HJ, the conversion is bizarrely unrelated to anything. having May 22 be +1 and May 21 be -1 (1 BCE, as it were), woudl have made sense. Anyway, it's not "my" site, and I've tried to use RWW dates when I can, don't mind looking them up, etc. So I'll let FF mull this over for a bit. Let me know if you want me to make such a table, or if you decide just to use the Gregorian calendar ;) humanbe in 21:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)
