MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Quarterly

That's new. Have RW's funding needs increased? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of "Free speech isn't free."

It sounds like a cliche, even though it seems like we're making a play on the cliche. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 12:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Could we use any selection of colors other than dark green on dark grey

even this would be better: Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. tmtoulouse 22:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Drop the template somewhere we can protect and we can use it. tmtoulouse 22:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it's at {{fundraiser}}. (Inventive, I know.) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Current version would be: Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

What to do when we face lawsuits filed to get us to censor ourselves? We face a current legal situation raising long-term questions about that. Without the funds to lawyer up, we must give up a slice of our free speech—and this would set a bad trend.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with !

Donations so far: $227.41Goal: $5000

Lets go back to the old days

When the main page and shit like this was unprotected. Porn would look cool in the site notice. ^{— Unsigned, by: 172.58.11.179 / talk / contribs}

Do you have anything better to be doing? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not even possible to make this editable for all without access to the servers. Christopher (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"alternatives" -> "alternates"

Please? The Moose (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. I hadn't actually noticed until I came here for a different reason. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

April Fool's

It got StormFront. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Choose

@Oxyaena it only changes if someone clears their cache -- effectively viewers will only see one of the notices. just combine them! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It technically works, but sometimes people's browsers will refuse to change upon refreshing it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh... What? It only works except for literally every browser that implements caching behavior according to published standards? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking even that's wrong and html-version caching happens server-side on a per article basis, with templates transcluded, and only a change to a given article's or template's wikitext will cause the cache to invalidate and the message to change. Not great. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well it would probably be best to simply stack two notices rather than having the randomizer. Because although it does work, it's not really ideal as you point out. — Dysk (contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

More color

This shit needs to pop--Hastur! (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Aye

1. --Hastur! (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We won.

The 2/3rds rule stays. You can now empty the sitenotice. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)