User talk:Hans Johnson
From Rationalwikiwki
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)
I see you have utterly abandoned any pretense to the RWW dating scheme. I don't know where you are in the hierarchy here, but if that bizarre dating is to be dropped in favor of the Gregorian calendar, please make the appropriate changes across the wiki so the rest of us can follow suit. Personally, the only reason I can tolerate it is that 2008 dates so far have been easy to calculate. Thanks, humanbe in 01:48, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- I hope that nobody has misunderstood my position here. I am not the owner or administrator of this site. The dating decision is not mine to make. It is a question for User:Admin.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:36, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Nor am I. Admin is the ultimate authority here. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 15:04, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Well, perhaps the three of us, who seem to be doing most of the work, have the "right" to overthrow what might have been a funny idea, but has turned into a real pain in the ass? I certainly think that a lot of what we report on should be dated, but the chore of conversion tends to make us simply not list dates. I think it would be fine if we just started using "real" dates for clarity (and informative reasons), and if Admin wants to change them, fine. If Admin gets mad and tells us to stop, fine. If Admin has an opinion on the matter, maybe they will chime in? humanbe in 15:11, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Agreed on all counts. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 15:15, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Fine by me.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:17, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Agreed on all counts. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 15:15, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Well, perhaps the three of us, who seem to be doing most of the work, have the "right" to overthrow what might have been a funny idea, but has turned into a real pain in the ass? I certainly think that a lot of what we report on should be dated, but the chore of conversion tends to make us simply not list dates. I think it would be fine if we just started using "real" dates for clarity (and informative reasons), and if Admin wants to change them, fine. If Admin gets mad and tells us to stop, fine. If Admin has an opinion on the matter, maybe they will chime in? humanbe in 15:11, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Nor am I. Admin is the ultimate authority here. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 15:04, 12 March 2008 (EST)
Ron Jeremy
I'm not sure that I like the name "Ron Jermey" award for prominent users. Can you think of somebody more appropriate we should commemorate?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:44, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- How about we say "False Flag" award? You are the person who gives them out. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:14, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I hadn't though of that. I, in my modest way, was thinking of some other worthies. I mean I'd like the fame and attention and chance to pull the chicks and everything, but "The False Flag Prominent Member Award" isn't really funny in the nudge nudge way that Ron Jeremy is, is it?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:34, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I suppose so. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:48, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I did not know who Ron Jeremy was until just now; I googled him. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:48, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I think he's a good choice, as probably the best known modern day male porn star. Using ones from the past like John Holmes would be even more strange. One possibility is that guy who is (was?) married to Pamela Anderson - at her roast on CC all anyone said about him was how prominent his member is. Tommy Lee, that's it. humanbe in 19:06, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I rather Ron Jeremy than Tommy Lee. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 19:38, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I think he's a good choice, as probably the best known modern day male porn star. Using ones from the past like John Holmes would be even more strange. One possibility is that guy who is (was?) married to Pamela Anderson - at her roast on CC all anyone said about him was how prominent his member is. Tommy Lee, that's it. humanbe in 19:06, 11 March 2008 (EST)
- I hadn't though of that. I, in my modest way, was thinking of some other worthies. I mean I'd like the fame and attention and chance to pull the chicks and everything, but "The False Flag Prominent Member Award" isn't really funny in the nudge nudge way that Ron Jeremy is, is it?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:34, 11 March 2008 (EST)
