Talk:TOTSE/Archive 1

message: I don't know about you, but my mind is softening around the edges just hearing about this.... --Wetman 11:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:   Whoa 

message: While many of the recent reverts are of obvious vandalism, there are also some reverts of seemingly good-faith edits. The reverts are done without explanation. Please try to give some reason for reversions, and consider whether some discussion would be preferable. --Rholton 14:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained reverts? 

message: Should this page be moved from Totse to TOTSE? --Rholton 15:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am getting your logic correctly, the next step would be to move Radar to RADAR :-). Of course, it is an acronym, but brief google look-around tell me that it has become a "normal" word (among those who use it, I mean). --Mikkalai 19:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for you to respond defensively. The first two paragraphs start with the acronym TOTSE, which is why I asked. After that the usage changes to Totse. It seems to me that there should be consistency. If it has become a common word, like radar, then it should be used consistently that way, as it is in the article Radar. You reply indicates that Totse is the proper usage, therefore I will change the article to use Totse consistently. -Rholton 01:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This makes sense. --YixilTesiphon 03:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: discuss...
:+1 --Cyberman 06:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
::First thought that comes to mind: asserting a statment doesn't make it true. That comes from basic critical thinking. From psychology we know that the tendency to assert statements lacking in proof is associated with a tendency for the asserter to doubt their own assertion.
::Second thought is, I laugh in your general direction, silly person trying to 0wn Wikipedia. That's like a bacterium telling the elephant, "I 0wnz j00!" Actually, it's not even like that—sometimes the bacterium can pull its threat off, but I really don't think you're going to resort to asexual reproduction in order to flood the vital systems of this elephant.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, I'd like to state that psychology is usually defined and shaped around an empirical science. I believe that, while using empirical methods, I can find a coorelation between TOTSE owning wikipedia to be about +0.9 --Cyberman 03:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
::::It's true. Totse really does own Wikipedia. Take your pseudo-intellectual analogies elsewhere.
:::::Since when does Jeff Hunter own Wikipedia? --AGruntsJaggon 10:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOOT TOTSE OWNS YOU 

message: This paragraph was just deleted:
:"Totse has a strong commitment to free speech, as can be seen in the diversity and occasionally unsavory nature of its articles, the fact that BBS members can post essentially anything as long as they do not become "trolls", and most especially that the first paragraph seen upon opening the Totse main page is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are some exceptions to the free speech rule: Goatse, Lemonparty, Outwar (a game where points are earned for number of times a link has been clicked), and for a short time, the word "nigger," were banned due to spamming."
The reason given was it applys to other forums as well.  But I think it should stay because although other forums may block certain words, many of them do not say they are a place of totally free speech.  This paragraph accuratly describes totse free speech policy.  Many totsers that read it thought that was a very important paragraph.
So I think it should be re-instated. --AGruntsJaggon 01:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've given it about a week with no reply so I'm gonna add it back in.  Feel free to delete it and come here to discuss the paragraph. --AGruntsJaggon 04:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Free Speech paragraph 

message: Hey! some one deleted my update I made to the totse page.
Please stand up if you did it!
I think people need to know about the mass atack the spamer did to 
Sg.
:I didnt remove it, but I dont think spam attacks are very important to the history of totse.  Be sure to leave your name in the future.  You do that by adding four '~' after your message. --AGruntsJaggon 18:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey! 

message: First off, someone needs to learn how to use the discussion page to ask questions like this.
But I think it's a valid question.  I'm a totse member so I wouldnt know.  Anyone else look at this page? --AGruntsJaggon 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not a totse member, but I used to spend a lot of time reading the text files, so I suppose I count. --Maru (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone other than totse members ever look at this page? 

message: Anyone think a section on TOTE customs, such as giving out your password in Half Baked when you quit TOTSE, +1'ing posts, quoting posts without commenting on them, etc. should be/could be added?  --HallofMirrors 07:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can find a way of incorporating them into Totseisms?  Also describe their meaning not just that people do it.  +1 is already there so you can just add to it.  Dont forget these things are mostly done by SG/HB users, not the other forums. --AGruntsJaggon 22:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I also made a Jeff Hunter page, I tried my best but there really isn't that much out there about him.  At least, not that I know of.  HallofMirrors 22:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible TOTSE customs section 

message: I'm requesting attention for this article, because I think that the article is overcrowded with fancruft and forumcruft. Although Totse does deserve an entry, I think that this article fails its point.. by so much superfluous information, viewers won't be able to see the wood for the trees. I already tried deleting some non-notable parts, however they were just added back in..maybe someone with more prestige should look at this? --SoothingR 13:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the actual forum-goers know what's best for the article.  --HallofMirrors 02:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why and how? Anyone who visits forums knows that much of the stuff in that article does apply to 98% of all message boards on the WWW. --SoothingR 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then say so.  For example if theres a totseism that is found elsewhere, write that its not exclusive to totse. --AGruntsJaggon 05:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, it's a good idea but IMHO it's better to remove the entire section altogether. There's no use to reiterate some phrases that are already covered in List of Internet slang, and nobody's interested in some random phrases that only occur at Totse. It's considered forum-cruft. I also removed the free-speech paragraph again, since it really isn't a rarity among forums to entirely allow all forms of free speech. Overall, I think the article looks way better now. Without a massive load of forumcruft and to the point. --SoothingR 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what forum-cruft is, but the totseism section would be very helpful to new users trying to get into the totse community.  Also the free speech thing is a bit more important to the totse forum since they are all about free speech.  The 1st amendment is at the top of the home page and it is important to note the few exceptions.  The old article did not give an opinion on it which is why I thought it was good.  It can do without the totseisms section although it is an interesting read, but the free speech part should be included. --AGruntsJaggon 08:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The totseisms-part was exactly what made the article look like forumcruft (an unnecessarily high number details about forums). Wikipedia is not a guide for new users at Totse, or a medium to attract new totse-users. It's an encyclopedia. And I still don't see how the free speech-bit contributes to the article; I can list so many forums that have free speech. -- SoothingR 08:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they claim to be a haven for free speech yet censor a few words?  Also the totseisms was kinda like a documentation but I guess thats not what wikipedia is. --AGruntsJaggon 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They have no censorship. -- SoothingR 06:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What sites are these?  Now you have me interested. --AGruntsJaggon 08:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting attention 

message: There was no need to strip the article of most of its content because of a few vandals.  I'm going to revert and keep reverting, if necessary. --HallofMirrors 03:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page got screwed up 

message: I just protected this due to the extreme vandalism... I'll unprotect in an hour. If that doesn't stop it, it'll be a day next time. --Greg Asche (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, unprotected. --Greg Asche (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been protected again by Tony Sidaway. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 08:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection