Talk:Main Page/Archive22

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

WIGO Conservapedia Talk page Borked?

I can't seem to get to that page right now. I keep getting an sql error. Hactar 02:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Nevermind, is working now Hactar 02:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Peter Lipson

Who is the Peter Lipson referred to in the Wikipedia and LA Times articles? Phantom Hoover

I'm not sure we're supposed to say, though I think it's a poorly kept secret. I think it may affect something off-site. I'm not sure if that's true anymore. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 16:07, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I'm Peter Lipson! [/spartacus] --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

(EC)He used to edit here a lot under another name but he only edits a few times a month now. He once wrote: "Contrary to popular belief, I am neither the father nor midwife of RW. I'm flattered, though." If he wants to say more then he'll probably add something here himself.--Bob^{bing up} 16:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

It's not a secret, and he is our PalMD. Doesn't turn up often these days, but hasn't disappeared, works more on his blog (and life). ħuman 16:24, 19 November 2008 (EST)

End of US dominance?

This new future trends report from The US National Intelligence Council makes fascinating reading. It looks out until 2025. I've only skimmed it so far but a few headings are: Challenges of Aging Populations, The Dawning of a Post-Petroleum Age?, Water, Food, and Climate Change, Multipolarity without Multilateralism, More Limited Military Superiority.--Bob^{bing up} 16:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Dead end

Why is the main page in Special:Deadendpages when it's full of links? Educated harmonic Hoover!

They're all in templates which are transcluded to the page, presumably. _and marmite 14:37, 23 November 2008 (EST)

There are links in the source to Lenski Affair and Andy Schlafly. Educated harmonic Hoover!

Those are commented out. There are, however, links, like the ones in the top box - perhaps it's because of some other strange reason, like no mainspace links? ħuman 20:51, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Donut edit war?

I've read about an "edit war" on conservapedia's donut article. I think the history has been deleted, and I can't find any description of the event. Can someone provide me details on this? I am intrigued. Alecwh 17:56, 30 November 2008 (EST)

See here for a little bit of explanation. _and marmite 18:29, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Never fear. As long as you support that donuts can either have holes or not, you're on the right team. Sterile^rationalize 08:12, 1 December 2008 (EST)

True donuts, surely it is manifoldly obvious, are toroids, and thus have at least one hole! Heresy, I say, that a pastry with no hole is not only a poor model of the universe, but also most definitely not a "donut". I will allow a little leeway for your revisionism that it might perhaps be a "doughnut", but that's a different confection of fish all together. ħuman 02:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Kentucky

Did anyone else see this? "The 2006 law organizing the state Office of Homeland Security lists its initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth." _and marmite 20:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

PZ Myers did Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 23:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I et a cracker in hiz honner. ħuman 00:07, 1 December 2008 (EST)

And to add to Caintukke article? ħuman 00:08, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Disappointingly Riner, the guy who inserted the stupid amendment, is a Democrat. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

KY Democrats suck. A Kentucky Democrat (with some exceptions, such as our national Congressional delegation) are to the right of most New England Republicans. They're a bunch of sexist, theocratic, redneck, homophobic jackasses. The only redeeming quality they have is that they are less of all of the above than KY Republicans. Researcher 23:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

iPromote

I promoted RationalWiki on Google, first to do it apparently. Even gave a "public comment" on it too. Does anyone who searches for it see my public comment? Or is it only for myself, which would be kinda lame.. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:21, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I made a public comment for CP: "Although a resource supposedly for home-schooled children, the site resembles that of a dictatorship-style blog with dangerous and false information touted as facts that shouldn't be presented to anyone with the capacity to learn." Teehee! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:09, 30 November 2008 (EST)

CoQ10 bullshit

So I check back in to my NY AAR station after some TV, and they are running what sounds like an infomercial (sadly, I hear too many woo ads on my liberal talk radio) for some crap called "Co Q 10". Anyone feel like helping me try to write an article not just yanking its chain, but tearing it out by the roots? Gawd, these ads piss me off... Google it, the hits are easy. A/k/a Coenzyme Q10. ħuman 23:46, 30 November 2008 (EST)

is it complete shite ? http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/coenzyme-q10/NS_patient-coenzymeq10 Hamster 00:25, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Pretty much, Mayo says all the claims pretty much "need more study", which probably means "real" scientists are ignoring its amazing health benefits. But ya never know? ħuman 23:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)

catch and release program

When did we decide to lock the main page? ħuman 23:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

18th of October. Haven't you noticed the absence of Freds and Tits? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:54, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I meant "when did we decide to do it", not "when did we do it"... ħuman 00:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Oh I see your point. I think the decision was passive rather than proactive. RA locked the MainPage, by this point everyone was sick of reverting the pointless blankings and so no one objected. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 00:06, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Meh. What the fuck...we're all sysops anyway. DickTurpis 00:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Everyone was sick of it? They never even left any for me to undo! Some of us enjoy reverting pageblank vandalism! [Sniff] ħuman 00:10, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I can blank it for you if you want. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 00:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I think the last "substantive edit" to the MainPage was agreed upon after a week or more of discussion. The contents of the boxes are still unlocked so anyone can change the contents just not the structure. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 00:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Which is an amusing point, in that our vandals are patently stupid... how embarrassing... ħuman 02:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)

If someone wants to dig around and locate individual templates to blank a page, let them. You have to be pretty special to spend 10 minutes creating a piece of vandalism that will last for 2 at the most. (and yes, I enjoy clicking the "rollback" button too, gives one a sense of purpose and responsibility) ArmondikoV^theist 04:41, 3 December 2008 (EST)

The North Face speaks against goats

http://www.thenorthface.com/101 Ridiculous. Alecwh 02:29, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Network error

For about 1/2 an hour I was getting a network error on RW & RWW (about 1 - 1½ hours ago- server probs? Elsewhere, even CP, was OK! Just sayin' is all _and marmite 05:47, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I got that too. Not a massive issue, everything's back and okay by the looks of it. ArmondikoV^theist 05:52, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Again!! _and marmite 06:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Conservative deciets, clearly. ArmondikoV^theist 07:22, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Search Wiki

Has anyone seen this feature of google yet? Though it still has some bugs, there's some interesting comments under "Conservapedia" and one interesting one when searching for "Rational Wiki"! Anyone tried abusing it yet? ArmondikoV^theist 07:25, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Link? I couldn't find it on a quick perusal of Google... ħuman 20:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

User:PFoster

I don't know where to ask this so I'll put it here. I don't seem to be able to edit the talk page User talk:PFoster. Is this some restriction on me, is it general, or have I missed something? It's a bit ironic as I wanted to ask about RW's censorship policies.--Herbert the Hamster 12:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Hey, that's weird, now I can. Was it me?--Herbert the Hamster 12:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

PFoster is currently dealing with a wandal, and locked his talk page to prevent anyone (except sysops) from editing it. I unlocked it as it is against site policy to lock talk pages. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not

It's there while the vandals are around. He seems to have gone back to his scat porn and twenty five WOW accounts now so it may be safe. ArmondikoV^theist 14:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Sixth of December

Lest we forget, this is a day of remembrance. Not just for one, but two major tragedies, both worth remembering for different reasons. Perhaps there should be something in the "significant day" thing? --Kels 14:27, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Only silly feminists would remember the first. Fall down ^{— Unsigned, by: 66.197.167.120 / talk / contribs}

My God. I almost feel sorry for you. How can your bizarre misogyny possibly be so strong that you feel it gives you carte blanche to make light of spree killing? Not fucking cool. I reccomend you stop trolling obscure wikis and start seeking professional help. You have issues to get over, and I doubt you're going to get over them by getting into snarking contests with people who really don't want anything to do with you.

And, Kels: That's really horrifying, and really disturbing. I never heard of the first incident, and I had no idea that anti-feminist violence on this sort of scale had ever taken place. It really brings home the sort of tragic consequences that bigotry–in all its forms–has on our minds and on our lives.

People make me sad sometimes. A Writer of Vaudevilles 06:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not making list of it, nor do I defend it. I just can see that it's not a very important thing for people outside Montreal (and not personally connected to it) to remember - the only reason we're supposed to think it important is the feminist desire to paint all men as violent toward women. Your having the reaction that you did indicated that you likely buy into that. Fall down

From the WP article: "His suicide note claimed political motives and blamed feminists for ruining his life." Now, does that remind you of anyone? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)

You were making light of it. You did not say "it's not a very important thing for people outside Montreal (and not personally connected to it) to remember"; you said "[o]nly silly feminists would remember the first". Now, explain to me how saying that only "silly" people would remember something is not making light of it?

Moreover, even if you deny the significance or validity of this case as symptomatic of a larger problem of anti-feminism and misogyny escalating into violence (which I suspect you do), you cannot help but admit that this was a significant incident. Look at the article Kels linked to. Give it more than just a cursory glance. The fourth paragraph states that this incident had serious, significant effects on gun control in Canada, and that it led to the pioneering of tactics that helped save lives at later school shootings. This was a culturally significant event.

The Columbine High School Shootings-which were one of the more historically significant tragedies in modern American history-resulted in the deaths of twelve people. The Montreal Massacre resulted in the deaths of fourteen people. So, should people in Colorado and people personally connected to the tragedy be the only ones who remember this incident? And, if the answer is no, then why should we not extend the same remembrance to an incident of similar cultural significance for our Northern neighbors?

Again: NOT FUCKING COOL. Sheez. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

Oh, and P.S: My reaction that you seem to think demonstrates my conviction that "all men are violent against all women" was: "I had no idea that anti-feminist violence on this sort of scale had ever taken place. It really brings home the sort of tragic consequences that bigotry–in all its forms–has on our minds and on our lives." How can you take a statement against bigotry and against anti-feminism and turn it into a claim that all men are violent toward all women? I'm a man, genius-why on earth would I believe myself to be violent against all women? A Writer of Vaudevilles 07:20, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Well first, my comment was 'making light of' the people that would remind us of the anniversary, not the event itself. I have read the Wikipedia article; you are right that it had some effects that make it more significant; but does that mean we should remember the event itself more? - I don't know. However, I think you should look at the 'Controversy' section which makes a similar argument to mine.

To your questions about Columbine, yes. I don't consider it to be particularly important, either, and I wouldn't remember its anniversary unless someone reminded me. Even 9/11 - which killed many times more - would not be among the most significant events of 2001 if it weren't for the massive reaction (over-reaction) to it by the government and the security 'industry'. By the way, I didn't learn of 9/11 until many hours later; my first reaction (after I collected my thoughts) was that this was the opportunity the government was waiting for to impose tyrannical security restrictions on all of us - I was right, of course. Fall down

Face it: you're just a shit, aren't you? _and marmite 11:17, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I admit that you were not explicitly making light of this occasion—you did not go “ha ha, spree killing” or anything. But, by belittling all those who would remember this tragedy, you are marginalizing the event itself, you are implicitly making light of the murders. By calling those who would remember this crime “silly”, you are making light of this crime implicitly, because making that the one and only comment in your post suggests that you think of the event as trivial and silly as well. I realize this might not have been your exact intention, but it’s the way you came across. And, at any rate, the comment was hurtful, cruel, and indefensible, whether or not some of the cruelty was “implicit” or “explicit”.

You did not say “remind”. You said “remember”. You said, I QUOTE: “Only silly feminists would remember the first.” You did not say “Only silly feminists would remind us of the first.” You did not say “apart from those personally affected, only silly feminists would remember the first.” You said that the only people who would remember this spree killing—whether or not they were family members or friends of the victims, whether or not they were victims themselves—were “silly feminists”.

Now, I know that in your haste, you may have mispoke and said something that was more hurtful than you intended. But, instead of doing the right thing-namely, apologizing, explaining that you mispoke, and clarifying what you meant-you have continued to try to justify yourself by LYING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID. You attacked people who would remember such an event as “silly”, and now you say that your post did not attack those who would remember such an event but those who would “remind” us of it. Look at your goddamned post! You did not say “remind”, you said “remember”. Whether you intended to do so or not, you belittled the victims and their families. If you did not mean to belittle the victims and their families, apologize. And if you did, well, you can go fuck yourself. A Writer of Vaudevilles 19:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Of course, you're right: 'remind' would have been more accurate than 'remember'. I could not have literally meant 'remember' as the action of remembering is not under conscious control (and thus no one can be faulted for it). Fall down

Edit Conflict

All the fellow feeling of a fellow with no feeling. Fortinbrass 11:20, 7 December 2008 (EST)

All I can say after all that, is that I find Fall Down's comments no less than sickening. No different from the things he has already said about women and children already, so it's no surprise. But it remains no less sickening for that. The comments of the others, I feel the opposite. Thank you. --Kels 20:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)

RA

I note that on RA's user page it says he was recently in a conflict and was opposed by much of the community. What was the conflict about, and which page was it on? (I posted this question on RA's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be getting any attention and I'm getting bored) Educated harmonic Hoover!

I fixed the link so I could go read it... ħuman 13:59, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Where? Educated harmonic Hoover!

You capitalized "afikomen". He doesn't. ħuman 14:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, right. I thought you were referring to the dispute. Anyway, What was the dispute about and where was it. Educated harmonic Hoover!

gibbon

We should do an article on the morphic field. I would do it myself, but I don't have the time. Educated harmonic Hoover!

Forum problem?

Anyone else having difficulty logging into the forum?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 16:04, 13 December 2008 (EST)

There's only one problem. . .

with the Conservapedia:The Good, The Banned, and The Ugly template. With this, you can't get on the banwatch list. Unless this totally replaces it, we need to have a yes/no box. If you get enough votes you can get on the banwatch. That's how the starter of the article wanted it (me) and it makes a lot more sense that way. Why not adapt an Article of the Weak check box. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 12:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

What are you talking about? Toast 12:42, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Use the search box- CUR

If you'd LINK it I might be bothered. As it is, it looks as if you're not really that interested enough to make it easy for people. So I won't. Toast 13:31, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Broadening Our Reach and Missions

This subject originated on my talk and the felids talk pages, but is more appropriate here. If we are ever going to get more hits/educate more people/become more prominent/etc. we need to do more things like the Felids article. Anyway, while I agree that our missions should be our focus, I see no reason not to get into other science concepts. And the fact is, the broader we get, the higher we rank on searches, which means we can inform more people, meaning that by expanding we are infact making it more likely that people will pay attention to what we say. I'm not suggesting we write articles about pop culture, I'm suggesting to broaden our scientfic reach. Please, make it possible for this wiki to be more than it is know. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 13:12, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Why the hell do we need things like the felids article? What is there on your felids article that the Wikipedia article doesn't have? You say it helps refute the anti science movement, but how? All you've got is a forced Sarah Palin reference and some stuff about cranks which you only added when questions were raised as to the need for the article. You could always just keep it as a user subpage, but it shouldn't be in mainspace. Educated harmonic Hoover!

Not my idea, but the suggestion that's been about is to have a "Science" namespace, where articles about science topics that aren't necessarily refutations can go. Certainly not exhaustive articles like WP can manage with its massive user base, but interesting and entertaining articles written in a relaxed, informal style. A lot of us here are either "great fans of science" or are scientists themselves, so to them writing about science is pretty fun. Someone's already pointed out, WP's got it all on accuracy and detail, but perhaps we've got some opening for entertainment and interpretation that they can't do by their rules. --Kels 13:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

We already have lots of various articles on scientific topics, of varying length. We have argued at length how much use they serve, and mostly agreed to keep them around. The trouble is, new ones often tend to be rather weak, and don't get improved much by their proponents, so they languish in the mainspace not informing anyone or arguing anything. Like felids, for example. If CUR wants to write some good articles on zoology, especially if they cover tangents one wouldn't find at wikipedia, that's fine. But if they are just weird vanity stubs that simply contain less information than WP, what's the point? And don't tell us that "we" can improve them, they need to be able to at least survive/stand on their own from an early day if they aren't really "on mission". ħuman 13:39, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I think a science space would be a good idea. Articles like Eukaryote, Atom, Atomic mass unit, Neutron and Quark might find a better home there.--Bob^{bing up}

Is it just me, or have I started more controversy in a week than is usually in a year? Anyway, I am improving the felids article. Frankly, I also think Kels opinion makes a lot of sense. ---"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 13:57, 16 December 2008 (EST) P.S.: To Phantom Hoover: my article is more informal and people are more likely to read the whole thing that they are the wikipedia article. And if you read the post that started this, you'd now that the whole point is to expand our missions.

Well, your whole point seems to be to "expand our missions". Not "the" whole point. Oh, and I read the whole WP article. Our "version" consists mostly of two or three sentences from it and some stuff about a rusty-spotted cat. Why do you think people are more likely to read it? ħuman 14:06, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Trouble with expanding the mission - it'll probably dilute the original mission. Toast 14:10, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Not necessarily. If you make a separate namespace with its own portal (like the CP portal, etc.), then you might end up attracting folks who want to be involved in writing popular science type articles rather than making fun of the crazies over at CP. So less a dilute mission than a parallel one. --Kels 14:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I agree Toast. But we constantly have people wanting to write science type articles. Look at the examples I gave. I could provide quite a few others. Also it wouldn't dilute the mission too much. The vast majority of our posts are still about CP anyway. Furthermore we have a recipe space and that doesn't dilute the mission much.--Bob^{bing up} 14:17, 16 December 2008 (EST)

"Trouble with expanding the mission - it'll probably dilute the original mission." Haven't we already fufilled our main mission. Anyway, I'm more asking for tolerance of articles and participating in them then them being some huge major project. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 16:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, but who is this "we"? You've been here for just over 1 week & you're lecturing people who've been here for 20 months (not me)! Just keep quiet & learn how we operate for fuck's sake. (& stop it with your sig [directing to Human's User page - altered by me]) Toast 16:17, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, maybe I'm being overbearing, but if that's the reason you're refusing my request, come up with another one. And I KNOW how you operate. I've made quite a few <gasp> uncontriversal edits. And my sig isn't linking to Human's page. And you didn't make it different. I did. And the reason that happened was that I was trying to get a piece of code so I could get a new font off the help page and forgot to change the link. And the only reason I'm not quiet anymore is because people started complaining about a page I made (you included). If this didn't happen, none of the discussion would have happened. And some people who where here longer agree with me. If you want me to shut up, let me edit in peace. Anyway, when you start deleting and/or giving people flak about edits, you're not that much better than Conservapedia. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 16:32, 16 December 2008 (EST)

You're not being overbearing, you're behaving like a little child who thinks that if he makes enough noise, he'll be agreed with. You obviously could contribute quite a lot here, but getting people's backs up is not the way to go about it. (& I did alter it - look @ the diffs) Toast 16:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Somewhat unfortunately this debate about personalities is taking us somewhat off the point. Might I suggest that if people want to enter into into personal debates they do on each other's talk pages? And please don't shout at me.--Bob^{bing up} 16:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

You're right, Bob, Sorry everyone. Toast 17:00, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I thought the "original mission" of RationalWiki was to make fun of Conservapedia? --Gulik 17:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)

The original editors were a group exiled from CP and RW1 was certainly focused on CP. RW2 (this wiki) was created with the wider mission as written on the Main Page. Making fun of CP fits into the mission.--Bob^{bing up} 17:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

While I think about it, the "missions" only really apply to mainspace articles - not to "Fun" and "recipe" for example. Obvious, but I thought I'd mention it.--Bob^{bing up} 02:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Fair enough. --Gulik 17:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)

As one of our three mission statement is refuting the anti-science movement, one of the advantage of the science movement has is it is based on facts an information rather than thing you made up sitting at home one day. I think it would be nice to a have large collection of short, sharp, well written and well referenced articles explaining a wide range of scientific facts. So that it can be expanded across disciplines we could call them references and as we start to build them up we can always wikilink them to the main articles. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 17:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

It's something I've put quite a bit of time into, not something that I made when I was half asleep. And I'm trying to make it well written and referenced. I just don't know how to make citations. And I'm using a college built reference source for the RSC bit of the felids article. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 10:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Forum spammer

Who's got the chlorox? A spammer vommited all over the forum. Sterile^rationalize 15:08, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I dunno, Linus? I have "some" tools, but none that let me "delete all posts by user X". ħuman 16:17, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Hmm!

Well, well

^Marmite

on Toast

20:12, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Well, that certainly explains what he's been doing while away from RW. *sniff* Oh, our boy's all grown up! He's hit the big time on the mother of all wikis! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Fun:Star Wars

Go, this article will to the trash bin. Depicts the Jedi falsely, it does. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 18:24, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Pleez complain on its talk page then. ħuman 19:05, 24 December 2008 (EST)

No one responded or made edits --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 22:06, 28 December 2008 (EST)

No one cares, except to aggravate you if you whine about something about a bad sci-fi series? ħuman 23:01, 28 December 2008 (EST)

YAYYYY!

Happy Christmas from Airstrip One!!!! Totnesmartin 19:04, 24 December 2008 (EST)

BAH HUMBUG!!!! Toast 19:13, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I think that my time zone is ahead here - only a half hour to go till New Year. So Happy New Year to ALL--Bob^{bing up} 17:32, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Bloody Continentals! happy New year, Bob. Toast 17:52, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Silly, the new year started ten days ago, it's only the borken calendar that's getting a fresh face! ħuman 22:06, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Really? News to me. I must say that I really enjoyed my leap second though.--Bob^{bing up} 03:29, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Quoting ©ed work, is it allowed?

Hi all, I have a question for those who are in the know when it comes to how © laws work. I am writing an essay (which I hope to post here on RW soon!), but my essay contains numerous quotes from a book that is still © (until 2048 I believe).

I understand how fair use works in regard to the images we upload and whatnot, but I'm not sure if my using numerous snippets from this book is entirely legal, and I have no desire to land myself or anyone else in hot water. Is anyone able to lend me some advice? Thanks in advance. -Redback^G'day 15:33, 28 December 2008 (EST)

If you're footnoting them properly, and the quotes aren't too lengthy (ie, at less than you are writing!) it's ok. It's better if they are to show what someone else said, rather than to simply say what you want using their words. That is, express your thoughts in your own words, and quote others only if necessary. ħuman 17:53, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, I gotcha. May need to cut back on some of my quotes, but hey, if it encourages people to go read the book I'm quoting to understand what it is I'm yakking about, then I'm all for it. Thanks. -Redback^G'day 18:00, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Issue

Can we do something about all the links that lead to "http://rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=[page name]"? They lead to dead ends, as it appears at some point "index.php?" was replaced with "wiki/". This would seem to be the sort of thing for a bot to do. Phantom Hoover 10:01, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, now they seem to look like "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=[page name]" when they occur. What are they, old diff links & such? ħuman 14:44, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Generally. Phantom Hoover 15:04, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Prisons

"A new study of US prisons has found that numbers of people in jail are at an all-time high, with more than 1% of the adult population behind bars." (BBC report). That is quite horrifying. Toast 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Could be added on WIGO:world? weaseLOId~ 14:41, 1 January 2009 (EST)

It's actually old news - but I've only just seen it. It just amazed me and I had to express the amazement. Toast 15:00, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Very old news. Back when South Africa still had official apartheid, the US still had a larger portion of its populace behind bars. :( --Gulik 15:04, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Hmm, is that more or less than the number of US citizens blocked from editing CP? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:06, 1 January 2009 (EST)

In memoriam

Don't know where to post this but let's remember the great anti-apartheid campaigner Helen Suzman who died today. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:03, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Archiving

Is there more to archiving than just copying and pasting the content of the article? Phantom Hoover 16:21, 3 January 2009 (EST)

No. (except it's cut & paste) :-) Toast 16:24, 3 January 2009 (EST)

PalMD attacked on Evolution News and Views

See here everybody! Sterile^rationalize 07:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Oh man, it had to happen eventually. Good luck PalMD with your response, but I hope you don't... maybe ignoring this guy will get him to shut up. Alecwh 13:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Uh, nevermind, just read that post on denialism. Alecwh 14:23, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Gentlepeople at this website, I urge you to regard this product post-haste!

Gentlepeople at this website, I urge you to this product post-haste! I believe that you will find it most relevant in regard to your interests! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Excellent!!!!!! Me 21:28, 5 January 2009 (EST)

So... we're back up, right?

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:39, 6 January 2009 (EST)

I can't get recent changes to load. That's important for knowing where everyone is. Are you having the same problem? DickTurpis 00:04, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Only every now and then. Mostly it works fine. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

It works okay for me, but Recent changes logged you folks in as writing that about 5 hours later than what your sig says. Does that mean anything, or are the sigs and Recent changes just on different clocks now? (Have they always been on different clocks and I just didn't notice?) A Writer of Vaudevilles 00:22, 7 January 2009 (EST)

They've always been on different clocks. Recentchanges works off of whatever timezone you set in your preferences, while sigs use the server time (or was it UTC?). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:24, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I see. Thanks! A Writer of Vaudevilles 01:27, 7 January 2009 (EST)

You're welcome! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Working better know, but things are still not going entirely smoothly. DickTurpis 00:26, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Not entirely smooth, but pretty damn good considering the server is what, 2000 miles away from where it was this afternoon? ħuman 01:40, 7 January 2009 (EST)

O_O Where's the new one at? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:49, 7 January 2009 (EST)

It just occurred to me to ask this, but why did Trent change servers? I was under the impression that he was only going to upgrade RationalWiki's server from a pay-per-month to a pay-per-year plan. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:49, 7 January 2009 (EST)

He decided it was cheaper and more efficient to set up a server in his bedsit, basically. We spent a couple hundred on hardware and the rest will pay for the fixed IP address for many months. Old one was at some server farm, I guess (the 200 miles was based on moving from NM, wrong). New one is is now is some geek's bachelor pad at whatever the hell Canadian university he is pimping for his PhD. (OK, Master's first?) ħuman 02:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Everything looks fine to me except the forums don't seem to be up.--Bob^{bing up} 05:20, 7 January 2009 (EST)

The new server sucks. It fails my connection as much as Tor does. Fall down

That's another benefit then. Frohlich 05:42, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Actually,as Fall down intimated, it's very iffy. At least 1 in 4 connections are giving network errors. Frohlich 06:15, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Make that 3 in 4!! fröhlich ^{"gay" or "happy"} 15:48, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not seeing the problem.--Bob^{bing up} 06:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Nice to see the site back up, but image uploading isn't working ("The upload directory (public) is not writable by the webserver."). If you already know about this then nevermind. Thanks and goatspeed -- Nx ^talk 08:05, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Upload is working now, or, at least, I managed to upload one (a screenshot of the "oh noes" message). New server is excellent, Fall Down. For the rest of us, anyway. ħuman 14:10, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Well that's good. Although I was getting a few 404 messages. Still, at least Fall Down won't be here so often. At least for a while. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 21:25, 7 January 2009 (EST)

And broken links! --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 21:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I've already uploaded Hitwin, but can't decide where to put him. -- Nx ^talk 14:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)

At the top of the "evolution" article, of course! ħuman 14:33, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Alternate hosting option

I found this while looking for my own hosting needs - www.nrealyfreespeech.net. DogP 11:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Something is Missing...and Something Else is Busted

Namely the little edit/formatting buttons that were in the top left-hand corner of the editing space. and the shortcuts underneath are busted, too...TheoryOfPractice 15:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

That's run by javascript, and Trent is working on it. ħuman 16:01, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I noticed the shortcuts, didn't notice the format buttons. I'm not very observant today... ArmondikoV^theist 16:32, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I find it odd that when I mention this, I'm seen as impatient. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I certainly appreciate people alerting me to issues, it is the only way that things get fixed. Once I am alerted though it just takes patience on everyone's part as I work my way through the list. Somethings are more important than others. For example, the time out issues that made the site unusable had to be solved first, their solution meant removing internet access from my personal computer which made it nearly impossible to do anything, so I had to redo the network till everything worked, we had issues with the way the short urls were resolving that made half our google searches goto a blank page, I assume you could see how that is important to resolve quickly, there are permission errors on handling image requests, bots not working, etc.

And once I was finally able to look at the javacsript issue it is not an easy one to solve. No major changes in settings occurred across the server move that should effect it, the javacscript actually worked fine for computers "behind the firewall" only outside computers glitched, I had to run debugging software to even find what was glitching, let alone the solution.

All in all sometimes the simplest problem on the surface is vastly complicated to fix, in the last three days I have slept on average 3-4 hours with 20+ hours a day spent dealing mostly with just the server move. I am doing the best I can, and just need patience from everyone.

All that said javascript should now work. tmtoulouse 17:22, 9 January 2009 (EST)

We really do appreciate all the work you've been doing for us, Trent. Thank you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:24, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you, and thanks to everyone else who have passed on thanks as well. I haven't had time to reply to much lately. tmtoulouse 17:33, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for getting Javascript up again (teh Weasel's insert name here is working again), but custom block reasons still won't work. Is that Javascript? Oh, and thanks for the toolbar for editing. It's a relief. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 18:17, 9 January 2009 (EST)

It's working for me. Can you see the random reason, or just the common reasons? -- Nx ^talk 18:22, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Just common ones. I'm using Internet explorer. Does that make a difference? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 18:24, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe, although it should work, the code for IE is different than everything else. I'll try it in IE -- Nx ^talk 18:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, you're right, IE doesn't work. Did it work for you on IE before the move? -- Nx ^talk 18:28, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Yes. However, I also used school computers, including a Mac. Though it's only the block reasons that won't work. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 18:29, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Obviously the new server is not run by Microsoft? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 18:34, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(undent) Rationalwiki went down yesterday just as I was about to fix it. It's fixed now. -- Nx ^talk 05:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Read it and Keep

This month's (January 2009) Scientific American is a special issue on Evolution. I would recommend all RW editors to get copy. --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 10:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I refuse to buy any more of those magazines since Andy busted that whole Black hole scam wide open ;) Jammy 10:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

W. T. F. ????

When trying to connect to:Conservapedia_Talk:Active_users I got:

Access Denied (policy_denied)

Your system policy has denied access to the requested URL.

For assistance, contact your network support team.

Toast 11:47, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Gone: OK now; Still don't know what happened though! Toast 11:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Vent your frustrations!

Anyone feel like trashing whats left of the old site go here! Some ground rules this is important many of the utilities and links will take you back to this site, that is just the way they are designed to work (redirect to rationalwiki.com) if it says rationalwiki.com in your address bar you are not on the old site. If it has the IP address you are on the old site. Feel free to do as you wish. Much has been disabled or altered for various reasons so it is a bit of a "shell" of its former glory. But someone might have some fun tearing up the joint.

This is mostly in homage to RationalWiki 1.0 which was mercilessly trashed and vandalized before we "went public" with a clean slate. If you partook in that festivity then go back on reminisce, if not now is your chance! Remember to take screen shots as you go!

Have fun!

tmtoulouse 03:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Oh this will either be fun or end badly. Probably both :P ArmondikoV^theist 03:59, 11 January 2009 (EST)

You might want to mention just how easy it is to be redirected and accidentally vandalize the actual, current site instead. Happened twice already with me—while trying to make the same edit. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Just keep an eye on the address bar & a cursor on the back key. Toast 04:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)

The big problem is that when you click "save" it redirects, once you get used to and remember that it's fine. Random page also sends you here so that's near enough useless :( Though I assume if you just replace the rationalwiki.com part with the IP it'll still be fine. ArmondikoV^theist 04:35, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If we swap the logo with something else, we could tell easily. Phantom Hoover 04:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, RA's screwed the editing tabs, so it should be OK. Phantom Hoover 04:58, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Would someone please give Jeeves a talking-to? He used malevolent Javascript to steal my account on the old server. The password and email have been changed, so I have no way of taking it back. That he did something like that at all, even if was one the old server, was way out of bounds. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:53, 11 January 2009 (EST)

There really are no "bounds" on a dead IP site. Seriously, he just pulled off some exploit that slowed you down. Those three days of trashing RW1 were a nightmare, just trying to edit things was tough. Anyway, that he did it is not "out of bounds", it's fucking scary. That it could be done at all, I mean. Was it an exploit that could be pulled off on an active wiki? Also, did he really do what you think? PS, if you want to make a new user name there, I think I might still be a 'crat there, let me know and I'll 'crat your new user name so you can keep having fun. And, of course, decrat me ;) ħuman 23:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Really, there are no bounds? Because by taking my account information there, he also knows my account info here. Given that I am the one had his account stolen, I think it is up to me to determine whether or not Jeeves was out of bounds. And I have already said that he is. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I'm surprised my account there even still works... anyway, the big question is, could his exploit work on any MW wiki? And if not, why did it work there? PS, you might want to change your password here, if you haven't already. ħuman 00:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I just did. Thanks for reminding me, Huw. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:02, 12 January 2009 (EST)

You're welcome, Jacob. Shalom, ħuman 01:05, 12 January 2009 (EST)

If a page here contains javascript but doesn't end with ".js", will the javascrpt still work? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Ease up on the paranoia a bit, he is not getting your actual password but rather your authentication with the software. He doesn't know your account information, merely highjacking that you were all ready logged in. It has no effect on this server. 216.221.87.112 02:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)

There seem to be a number of gross misconceptions about how this works. Let me set the record straight. This is the procedure of how you can use javascript to hijack another's account:

1. Javascript is used to change a user's email address in their profile to an anonymous email address readable online ("mailinator"), this triggers a "confirm email address" mail to be sent. There is a minor countermeasure in place to stop this, but it is ineffective. An effective countermeasure, requiring users to type their password to confirm a new email address, is not implemented.
2. The attacker confirms the email address by clicking on the link. They now "own" the email address associated with the account.
3. The attacker requests a new password to be emailed to them, the system generates a new (temporary) password and emails it to the new email address.
4. The attacker signs in using the new password, the system prompts the attacker to change the password. The attacker now has full control over the hijacked account, modulo any session the victim still has signed in. The victim has the opportunity to reclaim their account as long as they keep a session signed in.

The implications of this are:

1. No personal data is available to the attacker. This bears repeating, since people can't seem to quite grasp this. The attacker neither knows the password or the victim, nor any email address they may have specified in their profile originally. While mediawiki may be deficient in a number of security critical areas, this isn't one of them. As a side note, if you consider any password you're typing in to an instance of mediawiki to be safe, you are mistaken. Your password is sent over the internet in plaintext, available to anyone with the capability to listen on-path. A disposable password should always be used when using sites that do not use TLS.
2. This attack is possible on any mediawiki site, including wikipedia, rationalwiki or conservapedia. You need to have sysop privs as a minimum to pull it off, which ought to filter out many people with the motivation to do it. However, on rationalwiki sysop privileges tend to be given out like candy, to anyone who has been here more than a couple of weeks. While this sort of trust hasn't been betrayed, and I think it unlikely that rationalwiki is offensive enough to merit this kind of attack the knowledge that this is at least possible is important.
3. With a little extra work, and the addition of an RSS-to-JSON service on the internet it would actually be possible to completely automate all stages of the attack. However, most RSS-to-JSON service have already been abused in this manner and have been taken down, the ones that remain are intensely unreliable. Also, a more dedicated attack would also sign the victim out of mediawiki once the attack is complete. This is also possible, but left as an exercise for the reader. The doomsday scenario in a small wiki like Conservapedia is to target one powerful user (lets call him "A") and write javascript that removes the privs from every other account at the same time as hijacking the one account and then logging that one user out. At that point, it would take an emergency SSH session to kill the database server to prevent significant damage to the wiki.
4. I have often mentioned this attack as a possibility in the past, but have shied away from actually writing the code to do it. Of course it would be entirely unacceptable to proof this on the live rationalwiki, however on the defunct version I viewed this sort of exercise as simply a bit of fun. My reasons for not doing this before were mainly that if anyone deployed my code against, say, Conservapedia I would instantly be the prime suspect. Let me state now, I have no intention to deploy this in anger against any site, nor the patience to gain the privileges necessary to do so on CP. However, I did not consider that people might actually be offended by having their defunct accounts hijacked on the old server. This consideration came from the mistaken belief that everyone has some minimal technical knowledge, and that they would view the act as I did which is to say a harmless bit of technical showboating with no broader implications for the "live" version of rationalwiki. To anyone who still feels slighted, I apologise. Hopefully the technical explanation above should put any lingering concerns you have to rest.

Funnily enough, this attack would actually be a little harder on CP than on RW because they don't use email confirmations. Sometimes security measures can actually work against you. Such is life.

P.S. On a lighter note, it suddenly occurred to me that the code as I wrote it ought to be recursive. To overcome the need for the preferences edit token, it loads a copy of the preferences window in a hidden iframe. This ought to mean that another copy of the javascript is loaded and executed ad infinitum. One could certainly improve the code in many, many ways. It's very hard to write code in a browser window where the tab key takes you to the next edit box. --JeevesMkII 03:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)

From the above, I assume that if you remove your e-mail addy from your prefs, it can't be done? (with cheese)_{talk to Toast} 04:56, 12 January 2009 (EST)

No, not at all. The attack simply changes the email address specified. It doesn't matter if you previously entered an email address, or if the field is currently blank. --JeevesMkII 05:00, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Aah, of course, on re-reading, I see that now. (with cheese)_{talk to Toast} 05:02, 12 January 2009 (EST)

EZ edit section

The reason I (and probably RA) panicked was that I have zero knowledge of Javascript, and so couldn't work out the specifics of what had happened; moreover, I was panicking and wasn't in the sort of state of mind to think things through thoroughly; finally, Jeeves, regardless of how much it was a harmless joke, it is still totally out of line to steal someone's account without their consent. @Human: the reason only me and RA had our accounts stolen was that I deleted the scripts on your, tmtoulouse and π's accounts after shouting Jeeves into giving me the password. RA, I am emailing you the password to the account on the old server. Phantom Hoover 11:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure exploiting the dead RW database to test a program counts as "stealing someone's account", although I understand the freakout it caused. Jeeves could have been a lot more diplomatic and not hijacked the "people most likely to want to play"'s accounts! Or did I miss something? Do they have to be logged in to make this exploit work? Again, if so, he could have asked someone less likely to want to play there (like me, I think all I did was move my user page over Andrew Schlafly) to help him test it. ħuman 21:54, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Vabal

I am proud to announce the formation of my cabal, or as I call it, 'vabal'. Unfortunately, we have only one member (me), and people aren't paying attention. Would someone please help form a new 'vabal'? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 17:54, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Why? DogP 17:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

To undermine CP from the inside, of course! We could cordinate actions to do this:

1. Get a member of the cabal promoted to beuracruate (I know I spelled it wrong). 2. Demote (or here, promote) all sysops with blocking powers. 3. Once you are the sole person with block or demotion rights, gloat about it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 18:02, 12 January 2009 (EST)

For a cabal to be effective, doesn't it need to be secret? CP admins read this webpage regularly, and you've been about as subtle as a hand grenade. Of course, with the legions of parodists at CP, it'd be a crapshoot to try and figure out if people are working together behind the scenes. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 18:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Only one problem no one has been made a Bureaucrat since CP was founded. There is Andy, two incarnations of CPWebmaster and Bethany. Also you are the worst sock puppeteer in history. In addition I would like to add you are very annoying. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 18:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Still, we could do something. And I may be annoying, but only to you. And I thought personal attacks weren't permitted? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 18:15, 12 January 2009 (EST)

You must be new here. RW is all about the personal attacks. --JeevesMkII 19:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I feel I have accumulated enough good credit that I can call you something as mundane as annoying once in a while. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:08, 12 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, it would be easier to list the people you don't annoy than those you do. ħuman 19:15, 12 January 2009 (EST)

There is no vabal. Sterile^rationalize 19:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Not anymore, anyway. Hey, can this convo be moved to the saloon bar, since it has nothing to do with the main page? Kthxbai... ħuman 20:13, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Sure. However if it inadvertently falls into a trash bin along the way I promise not to notice. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 20:17, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Har har Mr.Pi, you win tonight's comedy log. DogP 20:49, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Farewell, friends!

Hey all; I've been mulling this over and planning for some time, but escalating work at school demands it take place now, or soon, so why not now? I'm planning on setting down my consular rods at RationalWiki, at least for the near future; I was practically nonexistent for the past year before winter break re-freed up my time :), but because I have enjoyed all of your company I wanted to formalize my farewell.

I won't be on RationalWiki, but I'll still be at my blag, here, and I hope that I'll continue to see many of you there: please feel free to stop by and say hi, or use "email this user" to get in touch if you'd like.

On to practical matters :). In anticipation of my return someday, and to preserve my junk on this site, I'd like to keep my sysop powerz at least... and I'll still be around for a few days tidying up. Again, you all are wonderful and I'm glad to have met you all. Please stay in touch.-caius (spy) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You are welcome any time to drop back by. And best of luck with the schooling and the blogging. I'm sure there's no problem with the sysopric, your see is safe with us! Take care and, please, do check back in once in a while, if only to pimp your blog! ħuman 23:40, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Cincinnatus would be proud. ;-) That's too bad, but I'll see you on the blog, at least. Cheers, mate. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 23:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You know I will and you, of course, have my info :). Human, high five for being awesome.-caius (spy) 23:42, 14 January 2009 (EST)

And Cincinnatus WOULD be proud! And I KNOW I'll see you on the blag ;-)-caius (spy) 23:42, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Bye Ames. Don't worry we will just treat you like all the other sysops who don't show up for months on end. We will miss you, I'll try to remember to read your blog more often. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Please do read the blag! It's amazing. One more thing - please take care of the site for me, although I know you will.-caius (spy) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You will be missed. Godspeed! -- Icewedge // talk 01:47, 6 November 1999 (EST)

Less with the goodbyes, more with the "see you soon on the blag"!-caius (spy) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (EST)

On behalf of SusanG, who is unavoidably absent, I would like to say that you will be missed, Ames. Marghanita Laski 00:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Don't let the door hit Goatspeed to you, sir! --Kels 00:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Kels, ouch, I think'd we were bff... til nao :(-caius (spy) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Aw, you know I'm foolin'. I don't have much in the line of a blog at this point, just my old homework blog that I'm gonna convert to a real art blog as time goes by. But I don't have a lot of RW time right now either, so it's just as well. --Kels 09:20, 15 January 2009 (EST)

You're right...your blog is awesome.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 01:49, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Psh, it's no White Coat Underground :)-caius (spy) 01:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

You have been a credit to our entire organisation. I promised myself I wouldn't cry, and I wont, however you'll be missed friend. Incidently, I have school issues coming up myself and its hard becoming a lying, two-faced politician without first putting in some heavy study. Take it easy buddy and if you ever consider coming New Zealand...dont - we dont allow your type around here and you'll be viciously beaten at the airport by Maori thugs. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:09, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Ciao Caius. I think your blog has commanded most of your attention recently and you could probably do without the silly squabbles that go on here. With a new President being sworn in shortly I'm sure you will have lots of important stuff to write about. Hopefully it will go onto bigger and better things and we'll be voting for you in next years best liberal blog awards. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:23, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry to see you go, Caius, & hope you will drop by again sometimes. On a practical note, can we restore & archive your user & talk pages? Deleting them altogether has busted a couple of links at RWW. Thanks. Good luck with the studies. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Yes we never delete talkpages. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 08:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Good luck Ames. See you on the blogosphere. TheoryOfPractice 11:45, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Don't be a stranger, Ames.   ^Contribs_Talk 11:50, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Ames, all the best. To absent friends in memory still bright. Stile4aly 11:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'll burn a sock in your honor!EternalCritic 12:35, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I loved reading these messages; it's made me very happy, but I won't be absent from the internets, just from this site! I'll still be praising all of you from my blag, at LEAST. Please do burn a sock, and be sure to send me letters in jail if Karajou's FBI warrants ever get issued ;). -caius (spy) 13:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Do us a favour: stick a goat (even a small one) on your blog in honour of RW.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 13:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I already read your blog every day, so I'll barely notice you gone here! : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Bye for now. Or see you at your blog at least. I think I'm annoying Mike right now, in fact. Sterile^rationalize 17:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Farewell little lawyer, hope you make it big in the blogosphere. --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 16:22, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for all the fish! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 02:45, 17 January 2009 (EST)

We apologise for the inconvenience! Phantom Hoover 17:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Powers

I have recently noticed that there seem to be a lot of 'power' user groups that don't do anything. I'm in the cabal. I have no cabal abilities. Town criers town have town crier abilities (the ability to use the site wide (urgent) system). Newts don't have newt abilities. What gives? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 14:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)

You have to be in the "Abilities enabled" group for those functions to work. ħuman 15:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)

So what abilities would a newt have? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:12, 15 January 2009 (EST)

To do newt type things. tmtoulouse 16:14, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd prefer a list of tangiable things. Without the hedging. And what are my cabal abilities? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)

To do cabal type things. tmtoulouse 16:23, 15 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, they are just words in the user rights log. Without some code in the database, they are useless and do nothing at all. Phantom Hoover 16:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

What are the different groups with tangiable abilties? We should tell people. Otherwise, they'll get confused. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)

As far as I am aware: sysop (block, delete, protect, import, patrol, show/hide revisions and vandal), bureaucrat (change user rights, rename), bot (doesn't show up on recent changes) and town crier (useless, see Trent's comment below). Phantom Hoover 16:31, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Town crier's function never paned out I have gone ahead and nixed it till I decide how better to handle things. Really, other than me, I am not sure who needs "urgent" message rights. tmtoulouse 16:32, 15 January 2009 (EST)

And usually, when you send an urgent message, it doesn't arrive until after the site has been borken for 20 minutes and repaired ;) ħuman 17:24, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Stargate Copyright

Moved to Saloon.

Atheism Wiki

Moved to the Saloon bar.

Logo

Where can I get a picture of our logo? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{is the chief bickerer} 16:02, 31 January 2009 (EST)

If you use search, you'll find quite a few, for example this -- Nx ^talk 16:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)