Talk:Main Page/Archive3

From RationalWikiWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkpage archives

Contents

[edit] RationalWiki moments of 2008

RW are doing a poll of Top Ten Conservapedia Moments of 2008. Would it be a good idea (or at least a fun one) to do a similar poll or list or debate about RationalWiki moments of the year? If it was set up here & then an announcement about it was posted on the Intercom at RW, it might get more people interested in contributing here. Or would that be carelessly blurring the boundaries between the two sites? weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 03:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in your idea. It be fun, and would drive some more editors our way. But we should wait for word from Admin and False Flag before proceeding. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Not that I'm too important, but I like the idea. FernoKlump 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Admin 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, first, it's totally "on mission" for RWW to do it. And second, it's totally "on mission" to fuck with RW ;) I say run with it. But how are you/we going to do the poll? Did Trent port the poll extension over here? Do I need to ask him to? Human 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you will need to. Last we checked, the vote extension was not installed here. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd see if there are enough moments before worrying about a vote. In extremis, you could always put the voting on RationalWiki & copy the results to here. Fat Tuesday 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a few to start (in approximate chronological order), all examples to some extent of Headless Chicken Mode, but I guess that's the most engtertaining sort of "moment" at RW:

I'm sure there are others, but I've only been here a few months myself, & RWW seems a bit patchy in coverage - it looks like there was probably hardly any editing here over the summer. Hence probably a few things not mentioned here (e.g. Fox, as above).

Voting arrows would be neat if it's doable. Otherwise, 'voting' could just be done with comments & signatures, although this would lose any anonymity. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The voting arrows have a major flaw: anyone with access to more than 1 IP can multiple vote (I've done it myself on RW). Why do we need to be anon anyway? Fat Tuesday 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
FT's idea of running the poll at RW is a good one if we can't get it set up here fairly soon; although simple "signed" voting here would work well too. All the events under consideration should have links to articles about them here, of course. Are we gonna add any "positive" or "funny" ones? (The Expelled Leader's Guide project? The Behe interview project? CP: The musical?) Whatever "we" do, it definitely should be spammed all over the RW Intercom to get some traffic and voters. Human 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I don't know anything about any of those. I agree there should be linked articles &/or difflinks for all of them when the list gets put together. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, our purpose is to be critical, so I don't really see the purpose of citing positive moments. Certainly the rare moments of justice on Conservapedia didn't make it into the top ten. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of linking to the appropriate articles here. I assume we use difflinks for the ones we don't have articles for? Some of them we have half-finished articles for (such as the Great Pissing Contest)—would someone finish those please? We also need to clean up our horribly biased coverage of some of them. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"Criticism" doesn't imply only negativity. Sure, the "good" things are unlikely to make the "top of the top", but it is a bias to only bother to report on (or even mention) failures when there are also successes. And, yes, without a decent article here, an item shouldn't even be under consideration, so there's gonna be some work to do. Oh, and Hans, I guess Trent is going to need to work with you closely to bring RWW over to the new server, so don't forget to remind him to set up the voting extensions (I mentioned it once, but it probably got washed out of his brain due to the RW 2.1 to 2.2 server move). Human 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Little squabble going on as I write over (of all things) a harmless pun on Furry Fandom. Fat Tuesday 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "RationalWikiWiki is in no way officially endorsed, supported, or, recommended by RationalWiki. "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that RWW exisits on RW's server space? If this is so, does that not count as "support"--and point to a possible bit of tension/ a conflict of interest? TheoryOfPractice 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Trent, by owning the server, is the only one with the power to force anything on us. He offered to house us on the server (it doesn't cost him extra to run multiple websites) and he promised to leave us alone. I, taking into account his exceptional character, chose to trust him (were he the sort of person to abuse his power, would anyone even still be at RationalWiki?) I consider it a deal between gentlemen, rather than a deal between two conflicting institutions. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And, would you have turned down a similar offer from Trent? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I probably would not have turned down such an offer--I don't blame you for taking him up on it, not in the least. That being said--and given that TMT seems to be allowing RWW full editorial independence, this may be a very minor point--I think it's slightly disingenuous for RWW to say it gets no support from RW when the owner of RW gives RWW a free ride on his server space. Perhaps the disclaimer could be slightly rephrased in order to 1. give a little credit where credit is due (a public thank-you where newcomers can easily see it seems only polite) and 2. allow people to understand that the hands-off relationship which you currently enjoy vis-a-vis RW is entirely dependent on the whim of one individual who could change his mind at any time. Just my 2 cents' worth...TheoryOfPractice 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We really should have a thank-you there. I am somewhat less inclined to insert a word of warning, but in the meantime I'll go ahead and add the thank-you note. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't figure out how to word it. Would you please add it for me? I'll unlock the main page to let you do so. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You can edit it now. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your trust in me, thanks very much...--but it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. I'm dead tired and have an early morning. TheoryOfPractice 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, then. Goodnight. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it struck me as funny too. Perhaps "we" should actually have a brief page describing the "details" as far as anyone would care. Human 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In passing: "officially" is a tad ... aah ... pretentious? Nicht wahr? I don't think RW has the capacity to be "official" about anything. Fat Tuesday 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Know that I think about it, yest, it is a bit silly to claim that a mobocracy can "officially" do anything. I'll go ahead and remove that. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 07:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I find that whole statement, especially the "in no way" part, rather tenuous. RationalWiki's entry for RationalWikiWiki looks a lot like an endorsement, or at least an advertisement. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 11:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Mostly because it was written by RationalWikiWikiites. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- who are also RationalWikians. And that's what undermines any kind of "in no way endorsed by" statement. I understand the spirit of what the disclaimer is saying (that the two sites are distinct) but implying that there is no link between the management & editorship of the two sites is a bit of stretch. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I like the current version ("RationalWikiWiki is not RationalWiki"). Human 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I know this isn't the place ...

... but I can't load RW at all now. Fat Tuesday 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. — ListenerX 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the above was not strictly true. I manage to load it about once every 10 or so goes. Fat Tuesday 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll give up trying. So it's goodbye to Fröhlich. Fat Tuesday 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Because it's moving servers. Trent sent out a message and even a temporary screen during the move. Any other problems would have just been teething ones due to the move. It's back up and working now. Armondikov 11:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Hello RationalWikiWiki

It is your turn guys! With the "success" (still working out some glitches) of moving RW to a new server it is time to turn our eyes to you. This needs to happen this weekend, I am tempted to say either tonight or tomorrow. Tmtoulouse 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In your hands we are Master Yodo.--False Flag 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy policy

As far as I can tell, we don't seem to have one, or not clearly defined. I think, as it's been an issue recently (here & at RW), we should agree on some standrards about what info we post about RW users & how we get it. So I've started RationalWikiWiki talk:Privacy policy to open a discussion. If we agree on some limits or guidelines, we can then build the corresponding policy page. Please add your thoughts on that talk page. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Corollary to "do not edit the article on yourself"

Proposed: Do not edit on controversies to which you are a party? Human 02:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That would prevent identification of power abuse (one is certainly a party to a controversy over a malicious block of which they were the victim). — ListenerX 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
How so? Your comment makes no sense... Human 08:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Suppose user X were the victim of a malicious block and wanted to complain about it. This would be a controversy, and X would be a party to it. Your proposed corollary could be interpreted as prohibiting X from making any complaints here about the block. (Or did you mean in the narrower sense that, e.g., Ryan should not edit the page on the New World Order article?)
— ListenerX 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
RWW isn't the place to "complain" about being blocked, or carry on conflicts started at RW. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Weasel gets what I mean exactly. RWW would be a lousy forum to get a problem at RW fixed, although it might be a nice place to blow off steam. But to bring a conflict over here and liveblog it while it's happening could get ugly (if anyone cared). To address LX's concern more clearly, what good would complaining here about a "malicious block" do? Reporting on it here makes sense, although, as I said, the participants should stick to talk page discussion of it. JMHO, of course. Human 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if you have a problem at RW complain at RW. "Administrative abuse" would be a good place to start. Perhaps a good place to abuse the administration as well.--False Flag 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: My only dispute was that the new policy might prevent a user who had been unjustly blocked from posting a note on a talk page here saying, "I've been unjustly blocked." With the clarifications above, the new policy sounds reasonable. ListenerX 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. No problem. Anyway, I'll leave it to the "higher ups" to interpret it and write it up in proper RWW style in the appropriate place, if they feel like it. Human 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have another collorary along the lines of "do not nag other editors with suggestions for what to write about you"? weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable for editors to be able to put notes on their article talk pagers pointing out items which they feel should be included - be these things blocks or anything else. The fact that they have gone to the trouble to come here to whine about such things should help others form an opinion of them anyway.--False Flag 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OMGDZ massive power abuse!

"Human", if that's his real name (H. Uman? Huma N.? Seems unlikely), trampled all over the other eager editors champing at the bit to convert the Osama Joe Biden article to reflect Hussein's imminent inauguration as the XLIV Super Bowl winner 44th Prominent of teh Unlimited Straits. Though blocked for a paltry 5 miniberries by one "TheoryOfPractice", the alleged editor continued to "improve" the Osama article in spite of admonishments. He also called all potential RW editor/assassins "assholes" on the talk page. Kan we haz artikle? Human 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Nobody saw it happen. (At least I didn't). weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. One more outrageous abuse swept under the rwug... Human 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I must have been watching the speech. But let me get this straight. You want an article criticizing your behaviour on RW? <joke>Can't you get RA to do it? I thought that that was one of his missions?</joke>--False Flag 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, what? I'm sorry, my attention was focused on trashing Ace McWicked for being an hypocritical git. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
He's not a ... whatever you said. He's a Kiwi Kop. Human 03:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said... Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 06:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

RW is down! Is anyone else experiancing this problem? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe trent broke it to fix something. He usually fixes it within a half hour or so. Meantime, you could go play on the IRC channel, often more folks pop up there during these little holidays. humanbe in 04:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It's still down for me but the RSS feed works & Ames just posted - so it's not down for everyone: "Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /home/rational/public_html/wiki/includes/SkinTemplate.php on line 387" Fat Tuesday 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
NOT AGAIN! --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yah, it's dead for me, too. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOAT IS GOING ON!? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Judging from how the intercom message was blanked, I'd say it had something to do with the intercom again. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
How does one get on? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's worked for me all day. Maybe you're doing it wrong. We're all having a great time over there...TheoryOfPractice 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Because of my absence? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WIGO RW

Shouldn't there be a WIGO RationalWiki section linked to on this Main Page, with green and red arrows for us to click on?

Yes, we should. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 09:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I dream of the day when we have actually have enough users to keep such a page up-to-date. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 09:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd get more traffic over here if there were something for readers to check in on-- Especially with this "boycott" nonsense nullifying the solitary thing RW has that's worth checking in on regularly, namely WIGO CP.

I'll bet I'm not the only one who'd like a chance to give that crap a thumbs down.

Set it up and display it prominently on the Main Page. I'll bet you'd get a lot more repeat customers here than you do now. — Unsigned, by: 207.180.183.47 / talk / contribs

I just asked Trent to install the vote extension used for the WIGOs. With luck, we should have it soon (i.e. within a couple weeks). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Off-Rw existence

Are we going to mention if RW users have a web presence elsewhere, like a blog or a myspace, or even if they're just on wikipedia or something? Rrose Selavy 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and other public wiki's are fair game. As for blogs, myspace, etc, we shouldn't mention it unless they have linked to it themselves from RationalWiki (or another wiki). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if they have juicy goss about RW? Awww. But yeah, thinking about it there's a limit really, the user articles would become less about RW itself and more about people who happen to edit RW. Rrose Selavy 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Favicon?

We can haz one, pleez? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting around to it... Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, now I recall why I never made one. I could never figure out how to set it up. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's how, does that mean you'll need Trent's help? And I made a new favicon, as well as a 32x32 version: Rww favicon.png Rww favicon 32.png, hope you like it. You'll actually need an ico file according to the mediawiki manual, so I've made one, download here -- Nx talk 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm. It does appear I'll need Trent's help—I don't know of any image hosting services that take icos, so I'll have to upload to the "root of the domain" (whatever the heck that means). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Root of the domain = base directory of the wiki on the server. But you don't have to put it in the root, you can put it into a subdirectory of www.rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki and point $wgFavicon in localsettings.php to it. That's assuming you have access to those two things. -- Nx talk 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain how to do that, please (keeping in mind my extremely limited technical experience)? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you edit localsettings.php or is there another way you can change settings such as which files can be uploaded or what usergroups exist and what their rights are? -- Nx talk 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ask Trent to do it. Phantom Hoover 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RWW inquirer

Whoever you are, please do not ask minors for personal details over the internet. Totnesmartin 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RW not responding?

Anyone else? Fat Tuesday 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

at 5:00GMT (00:00 server time - 28th/29th Feb? Fat Tuesday 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Back up @ 00:10 Fat Tuesday 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
But incredibly slow/Hit and Miss. Fat Tuesday 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy for IP edits

An increasing number of IP edits have been spam/vandalism ([1],[2],[3],[4], and [5]). (The last example was particularly striking—the spammer created the page after following a link that only exists on the Main Page.)

Given that we are a rather small wiki, of legitimate interest to a relatively narrow range of people, I see no reason to allow IP editing at all. If someone really wants to contribute, they can sign up. Unlike RationalWiki and Wikipedia, we are not here to practice being super-tolerant and welcoming to random IPs that happen by, or to appeal to as broad a range as possible. It would be for the best if we restricted editing to those who are willing to make at least a minimal investment in the site by creating an account. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Per my earlier promise, I will take no action on this matter until a sufficient number of editors agree with the proposal. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with not letting IP's edit. Refugee 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen on Wikipedia, I'd have to disagree with this. If this site gets more popular, IP edits could become very important. MrFish 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Can a captcha be shown when an IP attempts to insert an external link into a page? -- Nx talk 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason not to restrict IP editing, as HJ says, this place is small, and not intended to be "wide open". If it ever gets much busier we can always re-discuss, right? humanbe in 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User rights reshuffling

I recently went through the user list and pruned back the rights of inactive, or otherwise not-generally-available, accounts. Note that those users who have been recently active also have been promoted (MrFish, Nx, Phantom Hoover, and Rrose Selavy). This is tiny wiki and there's no reason to let inactive or "legacy" accounts have block, lock, and deleterevision capabilities. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, hang on, me and Nx are bureaucrats now? Phantom Hoover 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just finished reading the whole drama. RA/HJ got fed up with the inactivity/disinterest and decided to leave. He made us 'crats since we're the most active people around here. -- Nx talk 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We are? I can't cope with this much authority! AHHHHHHHHH! I need to read xkcd to cool down! Phantom Hoover 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It just had to come after I read that New Scientist article about how humanity is doomed, didn't it? 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm, this looks borked: Special:Namespaces -- Nx talk 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So what about me? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What about you? --  Nx/talk   21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

So, how's the new logo? I remade the old one as an svg, but unfortunately uploading svg's is not allowed. I've uploaded the svg to RW instead -- Nx talk 16:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, we don't have any access to the .php files that run the wiki, do we? Hans evidently did, as he was able to alter some of the permissions. Phantom Hoover 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't, but fortunately he pointed the appropriate config variable to a file uploaded through standard mw means. --  Nx/talk   21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How do we get access to the files then? Phantom Hoover 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Which files? Localsettings? Ask HJ. As for the logo, it's here --  Nx/talk   21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reshuffle

Anyone who was demoted in the reshuffle can whinge about it here. Phantom Hoover 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC) why was I demoted? --Test fail 06:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because RA was being silly? 217.171.129.nn 06:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

seem more pissy to me --Test fail 07:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Block rights?

Would it make sense for block rights to be given out to lower user levels? (e.g., janitors and hollyrollers). RationalWiki gives them out right away with the Sysop, which works well because it's a small site. There seems to be issue here with there being a member with the block right on at any given moment. MrFish 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I would block this spammer for a long time. Fall down 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A site this small should not have anonymous editing in my ironic opinion. 192.43.227.18 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all we can do is lock every single page. We don't have access to the server until Trent returns, and once he does, we might as well try this. --  Nx/talk  08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DEAD

I HAVE COME TO TAKE THIS DEAD WEBSITE TO MEET ITS MAKER. CHARON 08:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

With what? Phantom Hoover 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Lame! Give it to me instead. Mei 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation of titles

The capitalisation of titles here badly needs to be sorted out; Headless chicken mode has no redirect, and the whole thing is an unstandardised mess. Nx, would this be doable with a bot? Phantom Hoover 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, however I don't know how to write a bot, and user javascript is unfortunately disabled. --  Nx/talk  22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You have faaaaaiiiiiled us. Phantom Hoover 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think this wiki even had a "manual of style" - I thought it just ran on the "wing it" principle? humanbe in 03:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that gets very confusing when you're trying to do internal links when editing and have to go hunting in another tab to find the correct capitalisation. Phantom Hoover 08:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This site needs moar redirects! And a MOS. If you write it, I'll PHote for it. humanbe in 02:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have checked the built in redirects, and basically everything with anything in the title capitalised, other than the first word, needs to have a redirect set up from the non-capitalised version. The main priority should be to get things like Kip the Dip Incident, with some words capitalised and some not, as a search for "Kip the Dip incident" will give nothing; of lesser priority are things like Broken Wiki Incident, with all words capitalised, as MediaWiki automatically redirects you to the page with correct capitalisation, but internal links are still red. Phantom Hoover 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's make redirects from lowercase titles, we don't need redirects for every possible combination though. --  Nx/talk  10:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
My exact plan. Phantom Hoover 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that many of our articles actually should be moved to the lowercase titles e.g. there's no reason to capitalise 'incident'. Fall down 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that that is a good idea also. If I let you be a janitor so that you can make a start on it, will you promise not to touch any other buttons? Phantom Hoover 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmmmm, buttons! Yes, I can promise not to vandalise. Fall down 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hold on a second. First, we haven't decided on the titles yet, second, I'm not too comfortable giving Fall down extra rights after this --  Nx/talk  20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Saith the person who left half the article in place. Anyway, if he will clean up the pages, I'm happy giving him janitorship; if it was possible to just give him move rights, I would, but I can't without giving him the rest of the bundle. Phantom Hoover 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't even think about it. Fuck it I'll do them all myself if necessary. Fd can occupy himself by lying in front of a bulldozer for Arthur Dent and certainly not levelling his house. Mei 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that last sentence English? Fall down 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
We could Capitalize all the titles? On Another Point, a Certain Standard should be set for Syssosp - or do RW Standards Apply?--Tolerance 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You are definitely not an authority on capitalisation! Fall down 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] (B)eurocrats

All the active 'crats seem to be European (not False Flag?). This leaves a large gap in oversight. suggest another Murcan or two. 217.171.129.nn 00:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Site not need crats, needs sysops. Needs no IP edits. "Oops". humanbe in 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Round the clock 'crats are only needed on sites like RW proper, where there are lots of sysops who are less than trustworthy. Phantom Hoover 08:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware we were all European. But since we don't hand out sysopship like candy, not having a crat around shouldn't be a serious problem. On the other hand, not having a policeman/woman around is. We'll promote some more people if needed, but the spam attacks have stopped for now. And I'd still like to have Confirmedit instead of disabling IP edits completely. --  Nx/talk  10:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm from Britain, and False Flag is the only other bureaucrat who has been active in the last couple of months. Phantom Hoover 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am mostly harmless. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You must be joking. Anyway, as I said, you only really need one bureaucrat in a project this size, so three is just overkill. Phantom Hoover 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the issue is here. Exactly what problem is being addressed?--False Flag 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not we need another bureaucrat. Phantom Hoover 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK.... And it is suggested we need one because ....?--False Flag 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No one knows. Please address my comment? humanbe in 03:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If you had actually looked at the section, you would have seen that SusanG/Toast/217.171.129.nn suggested it because all of our current 'crats at that time were European. Phantom Hoover 08:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should you assume that I have not read the section? It's not that long, and of course I have read it. And I don't understand the problem. I have not seen fit to disclose my location, but, OK, let us imagine that every crat is european. Why (even if it's true) would this be a problem for our BON? Why would we care?--False Flag 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I is not a BON. Just that it leaves a vacancy (in time) for vandals to operate. If you're not bothered, then I'm sure I'm not. 217.171.129.nn 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The point has already been made that round the clock 'crats are only necessary on sites where there are less than trustworthy users with permissions allowing them to do damage to the site. Phantom Hoover 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Random page?

Is there a way to put the Random Page button on the left? It'd be fun to see what's here? Sterile 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --  Nx/talk  18:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There we go... Sterile 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

--  Nx/talk  20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Still bitter... BTW, have you seen the block war? Phantom Hoover 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? And I've been busy with other things. --  Nx/talk  21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It's over now, but it lasted for about one and a half hours, and for that time recent changes consisted almost entirely of the block log. Phantom Hoover 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. --  Nx/talk  22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be documented here. MrFish 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It was trivial. humanbe in 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the favicon, nice. How about the "edit section zero" exploit? humanbe in 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, and you can also use importScriptURI to load scripts from other sites, for example RW --  Nx/talk  11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)ALL
Thanks! humanbe in 01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WIGO

Do we want it? --  Nx/talk  14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite interested (i.e. yes). Phantom Hoover 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
upneutraldown
4Test
I'll upload the button images in a moment (they can be customized in Special:Allmessages btw) --  Nx/talk  17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue with caching. --  Nx/talk  18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fixed now. --  Nx/talk  18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice, love all the improvements. MrFish 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Helpski!

My is teh Bork being! --[[User:Lavrenty Beria|<font color=Red>Лаврентий Берия</font>]] 01:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Under "nickname" in your preferences, check the "raw signatures" box. MrFish 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My head hurts...

What, may I ask, is the point, if there is one, of this site? The confusion is hurting me... 75.158.1.251 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

One has wondered. 217.171.129.nn 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
To document the madness over at RationalWiki what else? Also hate to do this to you but...[6] [7] MrFish 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
My god, for once the internet has made no sense to me. 142.59.186.233 07:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FF

[8]

[edit] Username vandal

Since FD appears not to be him, and therefore doesn't want the discussion going on there, I'd like to ask the sockmaster to identify him/her. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's a her, no doubt, but I have no idea who. Fall down 10:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
How are you so sure it's a her then? --  Nx/talk  12:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I know those things. Fall down 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
He's a misogynist, of course he knows. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 20:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] N/A

I see this being used a lot in inappropriate places, like people's names and locations. For the record, N/A means "not applicable", and should be used when a field is inappropriate. So, for instance, Capturebot's real name is N/A, because it is a program running on π's computer and thusly has no name. Jeeves, however, is not a robot (as far as we know), and so his real name is unknown, not N/A. Phantom Hoover 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How about on here we use it to mean "not available"? But feel free to edit all the places it is used to "unknown". humanbe in 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Who is "in charge" around here?

I have long since lost track, is there now a complete abandonment of leadership for this site? Tmtoulouse 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Let's see

e Admin ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer) DEFUNCT

False Flag ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)

Kcabder ‎(Bureaucrat, Holyroller, Janitor, Police officer) INACTIVE

Hans Johnson (aka Radioactive Afikomen)

Nx INACTIVE

Phantom Hoover ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)

Theemperor ‎(Bureaucrat, Holyroller, Janitor, Police officer)

Weaselicious (Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)


Probably False Flag, but he shows up VERY rarely, so for day-to-day operations, probably P.H., followed by me, and then Weasel, who, like FF is barely active. This explanation of the RWW power structure brought to you by Theemperor 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever is in charge needs to make a decision about the CC-BY-SA vs. GFDL. I suggest waiting to see what RW does in a week, and following suit to ensure cross compatibility. But I will not make the decision for this site. 216.221.87.112 23:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that my name has been taken in vain above and that my absence is noted. Firstly, I make no claim to authority here. Secondly, I see that I am listed as "AKA RA" above. This is most certainly not the case. It was RA's, use of the site as an instrument to further his vendettas in RW which initially caused me to lose interest in the project. Later it frequently became the vehicle for self aggrandizement and axe grinding on the part of others, so my contributions have been meager. I'm frankly surprised to realize that I still have the powerz listed above as I had thought somebody had long since taken them away.
Having said all that, my response to the issue in question would be to support the suggestion that the site maintain cross compatibility with RW.--False Flag 09:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay that was point one, here is point to. The domain name for this site is scheduled to expire in two weeks time. RA holds the "keys" to that, someone needs to find out if he plans on extending the registration, and if not if he will turn it over to someone else who would like to do so. If neither of these happen there is nothing I can do to "save" the wiki, I can always forward it to a new domain if necessary. However, my suggestion is that someone get in contact with RA and figure out what his plans are. 216.221.87.112 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would nominate PH. As I recall, he seems - for whatever reason - to have a direct line to RA and was responsible for resurrecting him at RW at one point.--False Flag 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Screw it, I'll write him. humanbe in 05:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this comment is out of order, for some reason I missed this comment by Human, so I posted my comment below, I hope you are able to get in contact with RA, I'd be sorry to see this wiki go. Refugee 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If he doesn't action this I'll save the best stuff to my RW page until it can find a better site. Rrose Selavy 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
RA or PH would be the best choice, I'd think. Refugee 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Users with Access

List of Bureaucrats

Refugee 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RA replied, all is good, he's gonna keep this alive as long as RW exists. humanbe in 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I got the same message; I was away for a few days, however, and my internet connection conked out yesterday. Phantom Hoover 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Archive3"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox