Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / WildMassGuessing

Go To

[006] FastEddie MOD Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\'\'\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. This is what is known as a \'\'comedic\'\' premise. The theories are not meant to be \'serious.\' The entries are written \'\'as if\'\' someone believes them.
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. This is what is known as a \\\'\\\'comedic\\\'\\\' premise. The theories are not meant to be \\\'serious.\\\' The entries are written \\\'\\\'as if\\\'\\\' someone believes them.\\\'\\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \\\"proofs\\\" and \\\"evidence\\\" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories.\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'Some folks have been missing the joke, so we\\\'ve put up this programme note to make it clear. You may now put your tinfoil hat back on.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Updated by @/FastEddie, to make it as plain as possible that the theories are not \\\'serious.\\\'
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \
to:
If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \\\"proofs\\\" and \\\"evidence\\\" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories.

Some folks have been missing the joke, so we\\\'ve put up this programme note to make it clear. You may now put your tinfoil hat back on.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Updated by @/FastEddie, to make it as plain as possible that the theories are not \\\'serious.\\\'
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\'\'\'Programme Note #1:\'\'\'
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. This is what is known as a \\\'\\\'comedic\\\'\\\' premise. The theories are not meant to be \\\'serious.\\\' The entries are written \\\'\\\'as if\\\'\\\' someone believes them.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
\'\'\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \
to:
If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \\\"proofs\\\" and \\\"evidence\\\" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories.

Some folks have been missing the joke, so we\\\'ve put up this programme note to make it clear. You may now put your tinfoil hat back on.\\\'\\\'\\\'

Updated by FastEddie, to make it as plain as possible that the theories are not \\\'serious.\\\'
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\'\'\'Programme Note:\'\'\'
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Programme Note #1:\\\'\\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
\'\'\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \\\"proofs\\\" and \\\"evidence\\\" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories.\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'Some folks have been missing the joke, so we\\\'ve put up this programme note to make it clear. You may now put your tinfoil hat back on.\\\'\\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 0 from:
to:
(Copied from archived discussion)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\'\'\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \\\"proofs\\\" and \\\"evidence\\\" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories.\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'Some folks have been missing the joke, so we\\\'ve put up this programme note to make it clear. You may now put your tinfoil hat back on.\\\'\\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'\'Programme Note:
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Programme Note:\\\'\\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \
to:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Hats off, for a moment. The premise of this section of the wiki is that the theories being offered are being taken seriously, at least by one nutcase. If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek \\\"proofs\\\" and \\\"evidence\\\" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories.\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'Some folks have been missing the joke, so we\\\'ve put up this programme note to make it clear. You may now put your tinfoil hat back on.\\\'\\\'\\\'
Top