User:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki Treehouse archive 2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I am surveying this treehouse[edit]




User:Mei 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?Ty 03:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Good job! But what we also need is lemonade. User:Mei 03:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, life is currently giving me lemons right now, so some fresh lemonade might well be in order. Ty 03:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You should try SPRITE, the healthy drink for non-average teens. User:Mei 03:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Lemons not required. User:Mei 03:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm 20. But I like sprite. Sadly, I am suffering from limerence right now, so it'd probably just make my ticker explode. Ty 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Then you need this [1] type of lemonade. Enjoy any time! User:Mei 03:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh, your name, Mei, is the company that makes the dollar bill accepter on vending machines here. Hence I crack up whenever I hear you say, feed the Mei. Ty 03:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We also need:
  1. marshmallows
  2. sticks
  3. the secret of fire
User:Mei 03:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have bad news. Fire+treehouse=badidea. Ty 03:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Change of plan. We will instead have biscuits. Internet biscuits. User:Mei 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I had been saving these for later, but I brought spares. Tea? Ty 03:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm too untidy for tea. What are we listening to? User:Mei 03:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I am currently listening for the glorious X has appeared online sound. Ty 03:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty experimental, man. I am apparently listening to DJ Pierre. And I did not know it. User:Mei 03:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Normally, Ty would be asleep, but Ty is waiting out of hope, though he has gone to go cry on the couch twice so far. Ty 03:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I know the feeling. Except that "hope" part. This is the kind of thing that makes me wish I could talk to people. Maybe you should go to sleep, though? It's hard to be unhappy when you're asleep. User:Mei 03:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Ty is taking care of his grandmother, and her couch sucks. It has been 5 years since Ty last felt this way. And if you would like to join the evil RWW cabal, I'm sure no-one would object.Ty 03:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's about five yrs since I was limerant, too. What does joining the cabal imply? User:Mei 04:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Allegedly, skype chats, in actuality me and Goonie +commiserating.Ty 04:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I would join for phenomenal wiki powerz, but I probably wouldn't skype -- streaming stuff has crashed my computer a lot in the past, and I eventually had to just stop doing it. Can't even see youtube videos except really quickly to check what they are. User:Mei 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm the only one who has a webcam, so we just use text mode. Ty 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even know skype could do that. Also, I got you a song - [2]. User:Mei 04:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice, will listen to later, no headphones. Email Goonie for Skype data, I'm starting to feel tired. Ty 04:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Mei couldn't live without headphones. Get some rest, Tyrannis. User:Mei 04:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The future of RWW[edit]

Tomorrow, I plan to put the future of RWW on the docket for the RW Foundation meeting. My plan is to purchase RWW from the Foundation and to, eventually and gradually, take complete control of this website. I will let the community here know the results. Punky McPunkersen 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Huzzah! Ty 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
O frabjous day! Rrose Selavy 09:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yaay, Gooniepunk overlord! 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
THis is how Nazi Germany started. 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking forward to it :) Armondikov 13:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Punky just told me that the meeting is starting soon. Everybody hold your breathe. Ty 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The future of RWW: Part Deuce[edit]

Hello everyone. So, here's the deal. I went to the RWF meeting and we discussed RationalWikiWiki's future. Basically, before any action is taken on their behalf, we need to come up with what we want to do as a site and community. Certainly, they want us to be financially solvent on our own and not on the backs of the Foundation and, thus, we will be setting up a donation button and donation system in the next month or so so that we can fund our expenses to the RW Foundation (barring that, I can foot the approximately $15/month bill). Other than that, though, we need to have an open discussion about what we would like/ what we need as a site and an action plan that fits that. For example: would we like to be completely independent of the Foundation, or would we continue to use their hosting? So, let us begin that discussion here and come up with a plan for our future. Punky McPunkersen 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing we desperately need is server access. I also would prefer independent hosting, as I get 500 internal server errors all the time(I am here about 8 hours a day, so they crop up often). Independence from the board may be a good thing; though it would mean the loss of some of the pictures here, it would also permit us to say honestly that we are independent of RW. It also leaves us free from "cost cutting measures" or other attempts to get rid of us.Ty 22:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So you were at a recent RWF meeting where you presented a plan to take over responsibility for RWW? I'm afraid that I've lost track of the elections and stuff, but were you present because of your interest in this place or do you participate actively in the foundation?
I ask because, if the purpose of this place continues to be to cast a critical eye over RW, there could potentiality be a conflict of interest if you were more than presenting a proposal. It would also continue to raise questions about the independence of RWW.--False Flag 10:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Valid point. If worst comes to worst, I could take over the site, I have no desire in sitting on the RWF board. Or, better yet, we set up our own "RWW foundation". Ty 12:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Bluntly, the RationalWiki Foundation has been saying for some time that they no longer wish to be responsible for RWW. In that regard, it is true that I am currently a member of the RationalWiki Foundation. However, I've been pursuing a take over of RWW ever since RA sold it to Trent, long before the founding of the RationalWiki Foundation. Thus, I would not necessarily say that it is a complete conflict of interest and, furthermore, I have made it clear to them that I will recuse myself from any votes in accordance with RationalWikiWiki. But my point, moreover, is that the RationalWiki Foundation (which currently owns us) has stated that they no longer wish to pay for us. So, we as a community need to come up with an action plan on what we, not just I, want to do insofar as the future of RationalWikiWiki is concerned. That doesn't mean I'd be the exclusive "owner" of RationalWikiWiki, but it does mean we need to figure out our future as a website that is independent of the RationalWiki Foundation's ownership. Punky McPunkersen 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, in regards to our independence: right now, as we are owned by the RationalWiki Foundation, we have NO independence from them. Punky McPunkersen 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(EC) do we have a web host in mind? Ty 14:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In the interim, we will likely be hosted in Trent's apartment for around $15/month. In the long term, however, we can seek out other, possibly cheaper, alternatives. Punky McPunkersen 14:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Did we get server access? Ty 14:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Not yet, but I plan on inquiring about it once I have a chance to talk to Trent about our plans for here. Punky McPunkersen 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Ty 14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the server moved out of Trent's apartment some months ago. It's now on commercial hosting.--Bob M 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
that's true for RW, but i think RWW is still in his apartment. No news on that awful pot plant though. Rrose Selavy 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Rrose, what are your opinions on the matter? Ty 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Although it would be best if we could do our own thing, pay our own way and not have to depend on sharing serverspace/ownership/etc with RW, I wonder if we have a large enough userbase to do that. What would it cost P/A? That's what I think. Also, The Crimson Permanent Assurance Rrose Selavy 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
~$200US. If worst come to worst, both Goonie and I can afford to keep the site alive. Ty 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Good, because Selavy Holdings PLC isn't actually holding very much... :( Rrose Selavy
From the last meeting, Goonie definitely doesn't have a conflict of interest. We're all for offloading RWW and I think this is the best way forward. Armondikov 23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Where are the (other) girls? Ty 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a girl, and I am here. Conficker 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Your thoughts? Ty 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The breakdown[edit]

Alrighty folks, here's the update from Tmtoulouse as to what's going on/what needs to happen (quoted directly):

Here is the break down, feel free to share whatever with RWW as a whole.

RWW is hosted on a commercial server, but not the one RW is on. We have a smaller instanced server at our host that is used for running bots and various other tasks to avoid sucking CPU cycles and memory from RW. It is on this smaller machine that RWW currently resides.

I have no problem as the operations manager, and the RWF board did not seem to have a problem, with continuing to host RWW if it pays its costs. It would be $10 a month hosting fee, and $5 a month for automated backups. This would include a full shell account to the server. I believe this is pretty comparable or better to what you would find elsewhere. You would have full autonomy within reason (you can't host illegal stuff). It would be a standard contract, and if RWW stopped paying us we would likely terminate hosting it.

In addition there are two domain names that you would need to take control of, Though whether you want is up to you. It is likely to be about $10 per domain to take control of it.

Its a little complicated but I can walk you through it.

Punky McPunkersen 21:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So $210 a year. Not bad. I like it. Ty 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Basically going down the road of paying rent to the Trent, then. Armondikov 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob's host was cheaper, if I remember correctly $5 a month. Ty 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem if you want to find additional hosting, but make sure you take into account issues such as bandwidth and resource caps. Most shared hosting services at the very least cap resources such as memory and CPUs, you dont want to move to a host and be shut out for exceeding those caps. Tmtoulouse 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Isn't Media Wiki quite CPU and RAM intensive compared to just serving HTML pages? In which case you really don't want to skimp on costs if it affects performance. RWW's activity has shot up and I figure it may well stay up there for the foreseeable future. If the entire point of switching hosting is to improve site performance and stop all the 500s that you see, saving a couple of bucks may not be in your best interest. Armondikov 06:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
TEFLpedia does have a cheaper host, I seem to recall we maxed it out while half RW was there. Rrose Selavy 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I'm just going to say that, unless we can find a better alternative (which may not be likely), we will very likely go ahead with the offer from Trent and the RationalWiki Foundation. Punky McPunkersen 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Before making a decision you really need to know what you bandwidth is. Is this information available? You also need to consider whether you have people with the time and the technical capacity to transfer the site to another host. The simplest and safest decision is to stay with RW, but from the numbers I have seen, I doubt it's the cheapest. But, like everything in this life, it's a trade-off. --Bob M 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, staying with hosting from the RationalWiki Foundation for now would give RWW the time we need to research our other options. After a period under their hosting, we'd be able to see how we feel about the cost relative to technical aspects. It would also give us a window to figure out how dependent on the RWF we choose to be: do we want to be their tenants, or do we want to be completely self-sufficient? Punky McPunkersen 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Punky McP seems to have the best idea, in my opinion. I completely certain the RWF isn't going to give a us a raw deal. Conficker 20:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is now only shy one RWF Board member lol. humanUser talk:Human 23:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So has a decision been reached? 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems so, but wait for Punky to show up and give the final word, probably this evening given his schedule.Ty 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Unless there are any further objections and/or legitimate concerns, we will go with Trent's original proposal, to be voted on and approved by the RWF at our next meeting. In the interim, I've begun making $15-20 donations to the Foundation as reimbursement until that happens. Punky McPunkersen 01:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion...[edit]

The templates that appear on articles about RW editors should have links to their user/talk pages. Gabe, you're in charge of implementation. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 22:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, they do already. Ty 23:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, fuck me. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No. Ty 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"IP obtained from OMW"[edit]

For those of us not in the know, what does that mean and how does it differ from checkuser, and how do I know you're not using it on me? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He's using checkuser from his wiki, then blocking the ip here. Check user isn't installed here.Ty 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Who's "he"? And how do we know "he's" not doing it to "us"? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
SR, and because checkuser is not installed on this wiki. Ty 00:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
See the section above where I first offered to share the data. CheckUser isn't installed here but it is installed on the Oblivion Mod Wiki. When I find spammer IP addresses and block them over there, I block the same IPs over here in a (futile) attempt to stop the spam. I can't find out anything about user accounts on this site. SuspectedReplicant 07:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Would be interesting to write a MediaWiki mod whereby when one site blocks an IP for spamming, the IP gets sent to an indexing server with an expiry date (e.g. a week) and then other wikis (via a bot) could download the list and block the ips automatically. Obviously you'd need to grant write access to the index server to trusted wikis (and probably users as well) but would make things a lot easier. Should negate the need for checkuser as well if the custom script could get the IP of the spammer without displaying it to the user performing the block. Crundy 10:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Do the same at the ISP level where if you're caught spamming you're blocked from the whole internet. Armondikov 13:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, something like this exists and I've mentioned it above - [3]. Wikipedia also blocks people for spam and/or editing from open proxies, so you can use their lists of blocked BONs if you really want to block someone.--Burzum 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's on the to do list if server access is ever acquired. Ty 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Once I have a chance to talk to Trent, I plan on asking him for some sort of server-side control over RWW if I am to take responsibility for it. Punky McPunkersen 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) Well it looks like "FancyCaptcha" has solved the spam problem over at OMW. Once somebody gets server access, that seems to be the one to go for. SuspectedReplicant 22:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Ty 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RW is down again[edit]

Sigh. Ty 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Or not. Ty 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Today it's been up and down more often than an energetic hooker on a trampoline. SuspectedReplicant 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a new one. Ty 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
some chantard script kiddie is ddosing--Brxbrx 18:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Doing a typical crummy job. Ty 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It's that friggin' evidence that evolution is a hoax page again. It's gone up 30,000 pageviews in a day. Armondikov 23:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, hope it dies down soon, rather than being linked to more. Hopefully our slow-time will discourage further links. Dalek 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Until then, hopefully our pageviews go up, up, up! Conficker 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, on one bloody article. Not that I actually care about pageviews, indeed, when RW gets pageviews it breaks. Armondikov 20:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet again... Ty 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Target[edit]

Since you guys hit the 50 article target, I thought of another one. If you look at this list of everyone with over 300 edits, we'd only need 27 articles to have an article on EVERYONE over 500 edits. That doesn't count bots. We could then set the target of adding articles on anyone who reaches 500. We could even move down the list, adding people, lowing the threshold at which people are added. For example, we could say:

April: Those 27 articles + anyone reaching the 500 limit.

May: 25 new articles + anyone reaching the new, 400 limit. (There're 25 not done between 400 and 500)

And here's a kicker. If you accept the challenge, I'll do at least 5 per month! Dalek 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Ty 01:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I hesitate to stop this site from growing rapidly, but do we really need articles on people with 4-500 edits? RW is four years old next month, in that time plenty of just-barely-visible editors have accrued a decent number of edits simply by hanging round WIGOCP talk and the saloon bar. Perhaps what they said might be more interesting to write about than how often they pressed save? Rrose Selavy 07:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
What 'ee said. Armondikov 10:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


How are we supposed to watch and/or make fun of record what is going on at RationalWiki if the site keeps lagging too much to do so? Conficker 18:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Blame all the tweeters who like tumbleweed. All our other articles, being over 140 characters long, are just too darn tl;dr for the twitter crowd. Rrose Selavy 18:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not just that article, though. The site has been slow as hell for over a week now. SuspectedReplicant 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It is extremely annoying. Ty 20:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not even been able to get the site to load once since two days ago. Conficker 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I can get to load... barely. Logging in takes forever, I'm still trying to since my last comment. Ty 20:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly gone AWOL for me.--Bob M 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
^Good post. :D Armondikov 20:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

60,000+ people have been pushing into RW since Early Saturday, 10,000 this afternoon alone. There is no way our current resources can keep up with that demand. Upgrading to a system that can support that load doesn't make sense because it would double our monthly cost for something that we only need rarely. 20:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

On the assumption that this BoN is Trent, I'm going to push the idea of Google ads again. I mentioned it once before (ages ago) and it went nowhere. UESP manages to maintain this infrastructure (slightly out of date - those servers have been upgraded fairly recently) with no donations, purely through Google ads. See this page for the most recent finance summary. Yes, the two sites are very different, but it's surely worth trying at least as an experiment? At the moment, RW is essentially unusable for a large fraction of the time, and that's not good for anybody. SuspectedReplicant 21:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That sort of thing would have to be approved by the RationalWiki Foundation and, as a member of the Trustees, I think that I'd be opposed to google putting ads up all over our website. I understand that downtime is no good for us, but the upticks that crash the site usually don't last very long. Punky McPunkersen 21:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
We tried google ads at one point, we mostly got ads for woo and creationism. Anyway, google pulled adsense from us because our material was negative/detrimental to their advertisers. 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If the search engine beginning with "G" won't allow RW to use AdSense, that's one thing, but the argument about there being ads all over the site isn't a good one. Again, using UESP as an example, it's one ad at the bottom of each page that passes unnoticed most of the time. SuspectedReplicant 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Google pulled adsense from us because our material was contrary to the people that choose to advertise with them. That's that I guess. 22:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I already acknowledged that. But if you're relying on donations and one server, this site is never going to grow rapidly!!!!! Just as people on RW have been pointing out that nobody's going to bother hunting for a proxy when CP 403's them, nobody's going to bother waiting when RW times out or 500's them. SuspectedReplicant 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The site is under heavy load atm, has been for a few days, but will dissipate in a few more. Other than that it works fine. 22:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So... the goal is to run a website that breaks down as soon as it becomes popular? Seriously, Trent. I'm not trying to troll here but this is a ridiculous attitude. SuspectedReplicant 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So should I setup a server system that can handle the maximum amount of traffic we get which happens once every 3-4 months? That doesn't make since when there are tight constraints on your monetary resources. Under those conditions it is better to support a system that handles your usual traffic load. 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, but you should look for alternatives, and get this precious "Foundation" to look for them. A website that crashes whenever it becomes popular benefits nobody. SuspectedReplicant 22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This "precious 'Foundation' " is the arm behind the funding and operations aspects of RationalWiki. I agree that increasing our server capacity is something that needs to happen. But I'm just not so sure how we'd want to go about dealing with it. And google ads are kinda an annoying ass fix for that. Punky McPunkersen 22:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. Don't be silly. The "arm behind the funding" is whoever clicks the yellow button. The foundation was something set up because Trent didn't want sole legal responsibility for the site (which is fair enough). And yet again you're evading the point. Either get better infrastructure or forever forget the idea of being relevant. There are other ad sellers. Try those. SuspectedReplicant 23:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Take a breath and read what I said. Yes, we do need to increase our server capacity. But it's a longer-term goal, not a short-term goal. Hell, we just converted from a box in Trent's apartment to commercial hosting. It will take some time for us to figure out what we want to do from here. It may include google ads, it may include other options. I, personally, am opposed to ads, but that's what we must do to fund ourselves, than so be it. And your conceptions about the RWF functions are misinformed. Punky McPunkersen 23:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm breathing, but your statement about the RWF being the "arm behind the funding and operations" is plain wrong. If my conceptions are "misinformed", inform me. Flat contradictions aren't helpful.
As far as I can see, the RWF was created for one reason, and it was nothing to do with funding. The reason I deliberately abstained during the vote is that the whole thing seems to be a total waste of time. SuspectedReplicant 23:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the reason Trent created the RWF, it was so that he, if he so chose, could leave RationalWiki and it wouldn't have to rely on him. The RationalWiki Foundation's role is that it is the legal owner of RationalWiki. Trent is a member, of course. And he is also an employee of the RationalWiki Foundation under the title of "operations manager." But from a legal standpoint, it is the Foundation which owns RationalWiki, thus, the RWF controls the funding of RationalWiki. If you look at the RWF's meeting minutes, 90% of our meetings are devoted to finding funds for, and then funding, RationalWiki. While most of this simply revolves around us approving Trent to hold a fundraiser, the fact is that we must approve him doing so. RussianalWiki 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So... you agree with me then? SuspectedReplicant 00:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. I think we both know what we're talking about and just haven't realized it yet. RussianalWiki 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Site is back within tolerable limits for me. Ty 01:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know anything about this?[edit]

right here? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 20:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot get it to load. So, no. Conficker 20:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
From a recent Forum conversation; "Unfortunately no, having said that my late neighbour edited for a long time on a mobile phone, about half of the Help files were created by her that way so it's not really a barrier. --Scream!! (talk) 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)" RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume he's referring to Susan G (who has, unfortunately, vanished). However, I don't know if we can trust it, as Scream!! is sort of a trollish person. Conficker 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Scream!! is (or claims to be) Roger Bunting, who has taken over Susan's flickr account. Is he the original "RojerB" that she joined up as, I wonder? Rrose Selavy 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Scream!! is Roger Bunting, who has taken over Susan's flickr account. He is the original "RojerB" that she joined up as. --Beauregard Mousefeather 22:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you absolutely sure of this? Mostly I want to know because that would be a serious deal then. And I might even cry over it because, not knowing that, I threatened to LQT her talkpage after she left. Punky McPunkersen 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Wha... She did retire all of a sudden. Ty 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't human have her phone number? I think I heard him saying something to that effect once. Ty 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Who was editing under her RW account in March? LowKey 00:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the e-mail Roger sent me, he was. PFoster 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious RW Suggestion[edit]

I know Nx suggested something along these lines once or twice and was roundly shot down for his efforts, but how about banning transcluded sigs? I don't think y'all realise how much effort the MW software goes through to deal with all the template crap that happens on a page like the Bar or TWIGO:CP. I'd love to make this suggestion on RW, but it's dead for me right now. SuspectedReplicant 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It works for me. I'll cross-post. PFoster 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Cue three-day HCM in 3...2...1... Rrose Selavy 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Captcha fucked up?[edit]

Hey--I've been trying to create a sock here for two days, two different computers (both Linux), two different networks, and the Captcha is messed up -- there's no image, and then when I refresh, the Captch goes away entirely and is replaced by trhe text "Invalid Refer." RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be working for me. ChristopherS 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That was Linux on a wireless network. So... I have no clue. Ty 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Fuck me, that's weird. Both @ home and @ work, different machines in each place, both FF and Chromium. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I use FF, I'll have to ask Nx if he is still slumming. Ty 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not making this up
. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm thinking of adding quotes(possibly randomized) to articles on users. Good idea, bad idea, am I talking to the void? Ty 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was planning on doing a subpage for some users of their "greatest hits" - your idea looks snappier though. Have we got the random quote gizmo on RWW? Rrose Selavy 15:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. Time for template copying :)Ty 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No need, it works. Ty 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


Why does this site get hit with so much spam? Pacodog 05:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Because our defences are low. Also, as you say these are bots. A human spammer wouldn't even look at us twice ("rationalwhat???"), but a bot just plugs away at whatever it can find. Rrose Selavy 07:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
They are attacking in quartets now. Ty 17:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
When will RWW have server access?--False Flag 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, in one month. Ty 17:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Going to have to man the barricades until then I suppose.--False Flag 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm off to go camping, see everyone Sunday afternoon/evening! Ty 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Creepiest campground ever. There were people chanting all night long. Ty 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What were they chanting? Rrose Selavy 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Goodness knows. They were cub scouts, and I couldn't make out the words. Ty 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)