Page history
7 January 2009
6 January 2009
5 January 2009
3 January 2009
26 December 2008
Reverted edits by Proxima Centauri (Talk); changed back to last version by Jazzman831
m−28
no edit summary
+4
no edit summary
+24
23 December 2008
that's a little unnecessary, don'tcha think? editing's on now anyway, Andy just forgot to hit the big red button
−177
no edit summary
no edit summary
+178
→Statistics
m→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
−102
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+414
21 December 2008
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: isn't this the same as saying "follow 90/10"? let's just expand the 90/10 part so that we only have to talk about it once
+280
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: humiliating?
−26
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+148
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+26
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+169
20 December 2008
→Statistics
+2
→Statistics
−1
→See also
+50
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+6
clearly this is not true; Rationalwikians periodically brag about how their intentional parody from days, weeks, and months ago is still there
−107
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: there's a little irony in me writing this one, but it needs to be said anyway
+318
it's rare that someone who follows every other rule (especially 90/10) is blocked *only* for disagreeing. If a new user does nothing but disagree, they are just a troll and should be blocked anyway
+84
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: it's a *conservative* wiki -- should we warn people not to blog on Wikipedia, or not to write about shirts on pantsopedia?
m+82
again spun to the detriment of CP, by people who don't know how to put together a sentence that includes "Coservapedia" and doesn't include "evil"
+146
this is another case of taking trolling out of context -- it is very rare that a new user, acting in good faith and with good wiki protocol, will commit this error
m−91
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors: expand username point -- this isn't a steadfast rule and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to enforcment of the "first name last initial"
+437
the same goes for rationalwiki -- you seem to neglect to mention that most if not all mentions of RW are trolling or vandalism -- justifiably blockable offences
m−34
that's a little disengenuous, now isn't it? A new user wouldn't know anything about the so-called FBI incident, and wouldn't be trolling, like all others who were blocked for "mentioning the FBI"
m−25
9 December 2008
8 December 2008
5 December 2008
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
−1
Different editors are trying to compromise constructively now.
−16
→See also
−14
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
−12
→See also
+15
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+11
→Suggested guidelines for prospective editors
+222
4 December 2008
2 December 2008
1 December 2008
Updating user count
m−4
How did you tabulate the blocked accounts?
−40
Clarifying that these are not official guidelines
−35
30 November 2008
→Guidelines for prospective editors
+53
→Guidelines for prospective editors
+18
→Guidelines for prospective editors
−46