User talk:Tmtoulouse/Archive17

Problem

Could you look into this? It seems if there are too many http requests the site fails to load. Disabling gadgets helps, but is obviously not the right solution. I tried ping, and there's no packet loss problem this time (last time this happened it was a crappy net connection dropping packets) -- Nx / talk 11:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem still occurring? Any suggestions on how I can replicate it on my end? tmtoulouse 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although now Recent changes works, I can't load your talk page, even with scripts disabled in the browser. -- Nx / talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So far I am unable to replicate the problem on my end which makes testing solutions difficult. I will cycle some of the network hardware and see if that improves anything......can the problem be replicated on your end with RWW or RW Beta? tmtoulouse 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, both are fine. I think I know why your talk page doesn't work: there are a lot of images on it. It seems to hang after about 30+ requests . Usually it's around 37. When I disable scripts recent changes works because it goes below that number. RWW and RWbeta work because there's not much stuff there. -- Nx / talk 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try a few different internet connections I guess to see if I can replicate the problem. But if the problem is not happening to everyone I doubt it is hardware related. tmtoulouse 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've occasionally seen the site drop dead, but I either attribute it to high server load or a dodgy internet connection at my end so I leave it alone for 5-10 minutes and it works fine. Do you want me to let you know if I see it happen again? ^sshole 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's some kind of internet connection problem, ssh is giving me trouble too, it simply hangs randomly, and RWW is broken too, although the problem is less severe there. -- Nx / talk 10:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem consistent? Or random? tmtoulouse 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's fairly consistent, whenever I allow scripts in Noscript I can't load Recent changes, it stops after 37 requests (I'm using Firebug's net panel to track page loading). As for ssh, that's more random. -- Nx / talk 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was a hardware connection issue it should either be happening to everyone, equally, or randomly, right? The problem only seems to be effecting a subset of users, and a subset of browsers even for those users. Are there no errors in the apache logs? I haven't checked. Did you change the number of mysql connections allowed before this happened? tmtoulouse 18:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried three browsers (FF, Opera, Chromium), and they're all affected. I haven't changed anything in mysql yet, but I didn't find any problems there. -- Nx / talk 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried 5 different browsers on 6 different machines with 4 different ISPs, I just can't replicate the problem, which means I can't really test it or solutions. Hopefully other people having this problem can provide some information to make the pattern easier to see and a solution found. tmtoulouse 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just experienced a disruption of access to the Wiki; at first the browser (Firefox 3.5 on Fedora) was unable to connect to rationalwiki.com, and then it did connect but hung waiting for the server to respond. Accessing rationalwikiwiki.org was not a problem during this time. After I restarted the browser I was able to access the site again. The only gadget I have enabled is HotCat. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a server reboot and database crash recovery, probably unrelated. tmtoulouse 19:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been having problems. Nx seems to have fixed it for Firefix, but Konq. is still playing up for me. See Technical support. CS Miller 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have probs w/ FF 3.5.5, but they usually sort out after a few minutes. 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't fix anything. I tried a few things and I thought they worked, but it turns out they didn't. :( -- Nx / talk 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it hang for you, Nx, regardless of browser? ISP? Does it happen consistently enough that we could play the "how is it now?" game where I make some changes to the network and you see if it improves performance? This distribution of the pattern of problems though just seems to suggest that its not necessarily hardware. tmtoulouse 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of browser, yes, regardless of ISP I can't tell. It happens every time I try to load recent changes with scripts enabled in Firefox. Chrome is a bit more aggressive with caching, so sometimes it works even with scripts, but if I force reload it fails. -- Nx / talk 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I work for a multinational with it's head office in Munich. At work I'm supposed to use a Munich based proxy and, from there RW is unreachable or incredibly slow. However I also know of a proxy in the BBC data centres in Maidenhead UK and, when I switched to that proxy it works fine. From my home address, also in the UK using BTInternet, I'm also fine. Oh, and I use FF3.5.5 throughout. Bob Soles 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gadgets

Wait, I missed the "gadgets" thing all together, someone point me to a run down of this? tmtoulouse 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Nx's original message, if you had too many gadgets running it created too many HTTP requests and disabled your connection. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That, or a lot of images like Trent's talk page before he archived it. -- Nx / talk 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen lots of sluggishness recently - although the loading usually succeeds, RW takes longer than other wikis (CP, Awk, BN, WS) to respond when I am having "the troubles". Recent firefox on XP pro, with hotcat enabled and JS edit buttons disabled. ħuman 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gone!

I don't know if you did something or if it just fixed itself, but the problem is gone. -- Nx / talk 08:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I have an idea of what was happening, but following Koch's postulates I will have to undo what I did to see if the problem reemerges to be sure...but I am tired. tmtoulouse 08:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, works in Konq. for me now. Thanks to all and sundry who fixed it. CS Miller 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

High server load

You mentioned disabling something to fix the problem above. Is that related, or are we just getting a lot of visitors? -- Nx / talk 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I did should effect server load, we are getting a bit of a spike but nothing we havent seen before. Not sure. Will keep an eye out on it. tmtoulouse 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does revision delete on a high-use page affect it much? ħuman 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that should affect things much. It just flips a bit in the database. I edited Template:Nolicence, so the job queue is full, but that shouldn't cause that high a server load. -- Nx / talk 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Ceiling cat is back! :D

Hooray! I just saw that ceiling cat has returned to the log-in warning! :D Thanks to whoever brought him back! Refugee^{talk page} 23:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] -- Nx / talk 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ahha! So that's where it is.. I couldn't find out how it had happened. Thanks Nx! I love that cat. Refugee^{talk page} 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

merry xmas dude

All the staff at McWicked Co. wish you a merry christmas.

Hey

Thanks for unborking the site whilst working through an existential crisis. Corry (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. As always, appreciate your tinkering. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We done broke it?

We do anything wrong, or is the SNAFU? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 06:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Back up, takes about 20 to 30 minutes, you can access the wiki if you are lucky, it is better than losing weeks of edits on a server crash. - π 06:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal break issue

It does appear, based on a spam attack this morning, that the vandal brake does not prevent image uploads, nor does it limit the number of image uploads per hour. Any way this could get fixed? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep burning my blogspot comments?

I'm just trying to help! Coarb (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Cause I found an anonymous comment on the blog solely correcting a grammatical issue to be a bit on the insulting side, and I knew burning it would annoy whoever put it up. After that it was merely an act of trolling because you seemed to be taking it way to seriously. What can I say? I am passive aggressive asshole sometimes. tmtoulouse 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So Trent has grammar/language issues. Big deal. So do many of our best contributors. The message was clear and the stats interesting. Big fucking deal. ħuman 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It really hurts your feelings when someone points out you made a tiny error, the kind of error everyone makes from time to time? It hurts your feelings so much that you won't even fix the error? That's Schlaflyesque. -- Coarb (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he's just bored of your whining. OMG HE SPELED A WERD RONG AND WONT FIKS IT NOW!!!! ħuman 05:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really live in a world where, when someone corrects some spelling in you writing, you call it whining? My first blog comment said something like "You mean 'dominant', not 'dominate'". If that's whining, what sentence is not whining? Trent, when your journal papers come back corrected, do you throw a hissy fit if any of the corrections are about presentation rather than content?

Yes, it's a small error. But certainly everyone agrees that it is better to be correct than incorrect. -- Coarb (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Never said it hurt my feelings, I said the comment was insulting. Beyond that watching you crusade about is entertaining. Perspective is a useful cognitive quality. tmtoulouse 05:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't insulting. Nobody else would have considered it so, only you. Seriously, ask 2 other people if a one line note on a blog post with a spelling correction would seem insulting to them. -- Coarb (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Look there is a time and a place to correct spelling and grammar issues. If I have written an article or edited on on the wiki, come in and fix it up if you see errors. I have several times requested copy editing help on papers and abstracts. Then there are times where its nit picky, like say in a talk page comment. Speaking of Schlaflyesque, random unwanted comments about grammar and spelling rings a vague bell. All in all its a silly issue, and we should all move on with our lives. tmtoulouse 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The time and place for correcting spelling and grammar errors is "in comments on written documents".

Schlafly says that your point is wrong because you made a spelling error. I said no such thing.

Yes it is a small mistake, but your anxiousness to be wrong for the sake of protecting your fragile ego does not reflect well on this site. -- Coarb (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are spinning yourself up into near histrionics with this and fail to understand my actual view point on this, as well as seeming to have a drastic misunderstanding about my role on this site as a whole. Take a few steps back from this is my suggestion. tmtoulouse 05:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with the issue. You can be as insulted and as ungrammatical as you want with no more comment from me. Coarb (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. tmtoulouse 05:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your name isn't blue and when I click on it, nothing happens. Please correct this immediately. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your criticism of my signature to be insulting and plan to hide this revision forthwith. tmtoulouse 06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Coarb and BON, quit criticizing our dear leader over trivial issues. You are lame. ħuman 06:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody but you would feign offense by my insightful comments. I have had enough of your foul signatures and will log back in no longer help you. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope your happy your fowl insults have finally done. After I am done crying myself to sleep me, and my shattered ego, are taking the ball and going home. tmtoulouse 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am am so sad, to be wrong. Or not. Lovely chickens are tasty! ħuman 07:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Flattr funding?

While I'm not seriously suggesting this as an option, I was wondering what your thoughts are on micropayments. They claim that it could be popular for niche sites, and I think RW counts among the sort of thing that they're thinking of; a site that supplies content (as in, people come to read a few of the articles) but not as many that come, join up and donate via paypal. Anyway, just a thought, I can't imagine it ever covering costs exactly. ^sshole 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Block yourself

I am sorry to say this but you are a disgrace to this magnificent and gracious website. I have discussed you and your behavior with the site administrators and other users, and we demand that you block yourself indefinitely. Thanks in advance, User talk:SHahB 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll block him for 5 minutes while he's gone doing more interesting stuff. Satisfied? 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing rewrite rules

I backported the fix for this bug and added the B flag to the rewrite rule as suggested at mediawikiwiki:Manual:Short URL/Ampersand solution#Simple solution for Apache 2.2+ to fix ampersands and pluses in page titles. -- Nx / talk 11:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Honorable mention

You've probably seen this already, but you're mentioned in here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium

Still interested in Citizendium? Sometimes during the last six month a bug disappeared which prevented me from gathering their data. But now, there are some pics:

Larry Sanger's prognosis for Citizendium	The reality is somewhere in between his merely double our article count every year and muddle on creating 14 articles a day. I'd say it is something like muddle on creating merely 17 articles a day.
Articles created per day	2010 looks strong. BTW, only articles are included, not their numerous sub-pages.
Edits to articles and talk-pages at Citizendium	Here, all pages (and sub-pages) of the main name-space are included. Most discussed and edited is the article cz:Homeopathy/draft, but the prominence of cz:Life/draft and cz:Chiropractic/draft shows the somewhat unhealthy occupation with fringe medical theories.
active editors	Citizendium has only few regular editors. But they are all experts - nothing like our mob or Conservapedia's flock of parodists - so that's o.K. :-)
Error creating thumbnail: File missing editors in Feb 2010	Feb 2010 was dominated by the edits of a few users: as usual H. Berkowitz and D. Mietchen, but also the common editor M. Ireland.
editors in 2009	These three editors had dominated the year 2009, too.
Error creating thumbnail: File missing edits vs. account creation in Feb 2010	Most active were those who are at Citizendium from the beginning, only few of those who found it in 2009 contributed last month.
edits vs. account creation in 2009	In 2009, there seem to have been three waves of account creations: in early March, late September and October. An interesting observation is that even newbies with few edits can quickly gain the status of wikieditor.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an alien from Citizendium, but I come in peace. Would you be willing to revise your July opinions that CZ is sympathetic to pseudoscience? Having looked over the various articles you cited (I confess I'm not inclined to examine them in too much detail) I can't find anything that looks that way to me. Ro Thorpe (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I will try and take a look this weekend, and provide more specific information in the article or remove it. tmtoulouse 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd be interested....

in this. Šţěŗĭļė squid 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of people might be. With your kind permission I might be inclined to copypasta the link to the drunkard's communal association. ħuman 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, or I will. Šţěŗĭļė squid 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed: Ah, beat me to it. I'll get off Trent's talk now! Šţěŗĭļė squid 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.16

MediaWiki 1.16 beta 1 came out a few days ago. I'm going to upgrade RationalBeta so I can port our extensions and customizations. In particular I think I'm going to change the Intercom to use the new preferences system for storing group memberships. -- Nx / talk 12:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I've replaced the retarded default search engine with something more useful (it can do searches like this - I hacked the default one to make that work, but the results were usually completely useless). Unfortunately it's not real-time indexed, so I've set up a cron job to update the index daily (in /etc/cron.daily, called lucene-update). Performance-wise it shouldn't have a significant impact, although it does eat up about 200 megs of memory (right now we're at 50-60%; do you have any long-time stats like the bandwidth stats?). And the searcher itself is most likely faster than the default one. The update takes about 2 minutes and doesn't lock the database while getting data, so it's not that bad. We can even move it to the botserver since it mostly runs idle and has more than enough memory and processing power to do this.

Lucene is installed in /home/rational/lucene. If you want to remove it, there's an initscript in /etc/init.d called lucene; first remove it using "sudo update-rc.d lucene remove", then delete it. Delete the cronjob, and remove the lines between "# Lucene search" and "# end Lucene search" from Localsettings. -- Nx / talk 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Block please

Please indef block the following:

• User:DMCA fanatic (myself, user hereby requested)
• User:Dmorris (impersonation, libel)
• User:T*A*R*P*O*N*S (morronic vandalism)

PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't do that. Just don't edit if you don't want to. Plus, who is Dmorris "impersonating"? ħuman 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonating ME and I don't appreciate it. This is getting old. It's a meta wiki issue, and I doubted that anyone here would do anything about it anyway. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that I am not actually you, you know. Dmorris (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, "Dmorris" does not make me think of "PCHS-NJROTC" in the least. There was no previous user here with a name even close to Dmorris. So go shut the fuck up and go fuck yourself. ħuman 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: we do not block people around these parts. Plus, Tmtoulouse is probably busy elsewhere with more important things. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"FYI: we do not block people around these parts." ROFLMAO! Didn't you choke just a little bit in posting that Goon? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we do not permaban anyone around these parts. What are you incinuating there, TK? We do vandal bin, but that's not the same as permabanning. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 07:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you say so, Goon....perhaps if you keep saying that you will also convince others who haven't drank the Kool-Aid too. Otherwise your fellow sysops use blocks, continual ones, dozens of them, to achieve the same goal as a perma-block for anyone you don't "like" (who cannot unblock themselves as you do each other), so why keep up the charade? We've all been over this do zens of times, and I am not looking to start yet another HCM, it just made me spit coffee on my keyboard is all, so peace! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You moron. No one or nothing is blocked editing RW.

What part of editing once/half-hour forever versus editing never/hour for forever makes you think I drank some kool-aid. Hell, look at our block log and see for yourself that nobody is permabanned. Sure, we have vandals who can edit once/half-hour, but they can still edit. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 07:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The instant I saw "Dmorris" the very first thing that occurred to me was, "You know that looks a lot like "PCHS-NJROTC". Isn't it obvious?--Bob^{It's windy!} 07:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)--Bob^{It's windy!} 07:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Mediation

Would you, and User:Sid, be ammeniable reviewing Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Informal_mediation and conducting an informal mediation at this point on several issues. Take your time reviewing the process, but please let me know if your would be interested in pursuing this track. Thank you. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, Rob, why are you trolling yet another user here with your feeble antics? Also, let me warn you, dragging Trent into this is a really bad idea. The rest of us are but pawns to his Queen of wikilawyering. Do you seriously wish to engage one who can move in any direction as far as they like, simultaneously forking three of your best pieces? ħuman 01:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom does not get involved in content disputes. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, you idiot, that section doesn't even exist. ħuman 01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

human, fixed the link to you. Sorry. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation about what? Define "several issues" since I have edited WP twice in the last so many months what mediation issues do you need resolved? tmtoulouse 05:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to review the content issues at wp:Conservapedia, which you've been involved with since you refered to it in WP as a "racist propaganda sewer." Rationalwiki editors have controlled that page since. Factual accuracy is now being disputed and discussed.

Then we have the matter of user conduct; while you and I have always had a good civil relationship, there have been problems with others in the past. RW is virtually nothing more than an attack site on Andy Schlafly, a living person. Discussions in any internet forum with most users associated with this site border on irrationality when the name Andy Schlafly is raised. Thers is no way you could remove by oversight all the hate-filled venom toward Andy posted here.

This RW/CP dispute is now creeping into WP, and neutral Admins are sick of it. It has all the making of a classic ArbCom case, where it ultimatley will go if Mediation fails. In my estimation, us three (SID, you and me) are bested suited to resolves the problems in WP's wp:Conservapedia article, without an army of sockpuppet trolls interfering.

Please, familiarize yourself with WP:DR, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. I am willing to work in good faith to resolve diputes. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we contact wp:WP:MEDCAB. A private discussion group could be formed with tmtlouslouse, Sid 3050, nobs and a WP volunteer from MEDCAB. I think this really is necessary. Thank you. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall I add "RW is attacking Andy" to the ever growing pile of your concerns? So far we got:

• "RW is responsible for the comments that ticked Lenski off"
• "RW is controlling the content of WP's Conservapedia article"
• "RW is attempting to control the content of WP's RationalWiki article"
• "RW members editing the RW article violate the COI rules"
• "It's disputed whether PalMD founded RW"
• "The factual accuracy of the LA Times article is in dispute"
• "RW is to blame for the Hit List incident"
• "Sid trolled the COI Noticeboard"

Before you drag more and more people into this, why don't you simply try to discuss some of these issues on the according Wikipedia talk pages? I explicitly invited you on the CP talk page since this seems to be what most of your concerns are focused on, and yet you just keep clinging to process instead of actually discussing. Dispute Resolution is more than just saying "I am engaging the user in Dispute Resolution", followed by ArbCom threats and accusations. I tried to bring up content on my talk page and the CP talk page, and you ignored my posts. That is your good faith attempt at DR? --Sid (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC, reply to RobSmith) "Neutral admins are sick of it" because you keep demanding their attention, then evading their questions about what specifically is being disputed or what kind of resolution you are looking for. And again you're still discussing this at the wrong site. WP business should be discussed & settled at WP, not at RW. Admins here are sick of hearing about this too. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Give the poor man a break, Weasel. He's a CP admin, so he's got no experience in actually following rules or explaining any decision. Rules are for other, lesser people. --Kels (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So at what point does this all constitute outright harassment on Rob's part? It's obviously got nothing to do with WP content, and entirely what he thinks is counterintelligence against RW for being mean to Andy and his blog. --Kels (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid: Why is this here? Šţěŗĭļė squid 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Rob. What is really necessary is not MEDCAB, ARBCOM, DR, MED, COIN, NPOVN or any other fancy acronym. What is necessary is that you ACTUALLY START DISCUSSING CONTENT. You spent pretty much your entire time here just rambling about process and making accusations. And on Wikipedia, you avoid discussing content by first making unreasonable demands (like reverting my edit to the RW article on COI grounds EVEN THOUGH THE COI NOTICEBOARD PEOPLE TOLD YOU YOU ARE WRONG) and then insisting that you are engaging me in DR. Make your case regarding content on the Wikipedia article talk page, and I will engage you there. What you are doing here is unproductive to say the very least. --Sid (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss content in private mediation, without the trolling and harassment. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't engage CP sysops in behind closed doors. I tried that with Andy, Ed and TK way back and learned to regret it. I'm not saying that you will screw me over, but I'm simply not interested in taking any chances with CP sysops anymore. If you wish to discuss content with me, please do so on the respective article's talk page. If you don't wish to do that, I consider this case closed. My opinion on the LA Times accuracy (something you repeatedly mentioned, yet never felt like actually discussing) can be seen on my talk page. So far, you have not reacted to it. I offered to discuss content multiple times and never got a proper reaction. I have better things to do than to get dragged from Noticeboard to Mediation to ArbCom to whatever just because you're more interested in dissecting rules than simply discussing one issue at a time. This user talk page, my user talk page, the WIGO talk page and the Wikipedia talk pages and Noticeboards show that I repeatedly tried to discuss content with you and that you weren't interested in such discussions. You have kept me involved for roughly five days by now. Enough is enough. Start discussing content or stop pestering me. --Sid (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, trust me, I don't need to review WP policy. I am very familiar with all of it, as I have studied it for years as a fascinating example of extreme bureaucracy creep. I also like to play wikilawyer games when I am bored. However, I am not bored right now, I am extremely busy with my research. I don't have the time to even maintain the most cursory watch on RW beyond keeping the server paid for and working. I certainly have even less time to play on WP. Upon reviewing the situation on WP the conflict fails to meet even the most basic standards for dispute resolution. There are many steps that need to be met before you start dropping stuff all over the watch boards. Meet me on wp:talk:Conservapedia if you are actually interested in doing something. Just be warned, my time is very limited and if I feel you are not actually trying to get something productive accomplished I am not going to stick around. tmtoulouse 17:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that tmt, me too. My time is precious. But these problems go back to the founding of the CP entry in WP, and the founding of RW. It's not very difficult to convince Arbs & Mediators the problems between editors of the two wikis is disruptive to the WP project. This requires leadership. These problems can't be discussed in open forums with armies of trolls disrupting good faith editors who want to resolve problems in a spirit of civiliity. These trolls need to be reigned in.

You're asking me to engage at wp:Conservapedia right now. The question we're trying to resolve at the moment is who founded and/or owns RationalWiki? You and I are in agreement elsewhere, RW is non-notable and should be deleted. We may fail in that effort. If not, then by god, we are going to establish who founded and/or owns RationalWiki, why anyone connected with the site should be regarded as a WP:RS, and perhaps some properly sourced information on this sites own history and activity.

And given the history (I can provide ample diffs), this cannot be resolved in an open forum.

Let's open a backchannel mediation (such thing is common in WP and encouraged). We're not under any particular deadline to accomplish full agreements. If the process breaksdown, we'll move onto the next step. Alternatively, if I file an RfM, it gets assigned to a Mediator and rejected by you, then we can move on to Arbcom. You can do good now by accepting my good faith offers to resolve disputes and improve Wikipedia.

In Christ, nobs^{don't bother me} 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think that MEDCAB could be useful in this matter. It does stand for "medicine cabinet", right? ħuman 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)So it would seem that Rob's goal here is to wipe RW from WP as much as possible in some sort of Ken-style "gotcha". So instead of a redirect, he's pretending there's already agreement on deletion, which would take the history out of easy view. And, of course, reverted back to his own false version in any case beforehand. TK would love the whole taking things off-wiki and through backdoor channels to avoid documentation on WP itself, very Soviet-style. You'd make the Kremlin proud, son. --Kels (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kels, please stop mischaracterizing the dispute. wp:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RationalWiki

• Delete and/or redirect. nobs (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect and/or delete. -Sid 3050 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Conservapedia Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of opinion. nobs^{don't bother me} 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, and I can select 3 keep votes and call that a consensus too. In reality I count 6 delete, 7 keep and 8 redirect. Hardly a consensus. -- Nx / talk 09:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Rob. Maybe I got confused, since you were against it before you were for it. Aside from which, THIS IS A WP MATTER, TAKE IT TO WP AS PER THEIR OWN POLICIES --Kels (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am more interested in Sid's opinion of the accuracy of the Los Angeles Times article, actually.....because you here have used the accuracy of it to brand me with a name I have never admitted to, and continue to this day basing calling me by that name upon your own statements that the article is accurate. So could Trent as the controlling party of this wiki, having the server custody, publicly state which is it? Is the L.A. Times article accurate or not? If not please remove all references associating my name, TK, with someone's actual name. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Very tricky TK but try harder. Thave been numerous other bits of info that confirm your name. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of the LA Times accuracy has been on my user talk page for several days now. Long story short:

In my eyes, "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website" (1) doesn't say that Lipson is the founder and (2) states that he is a first-generation member. So it doesn't contradict PalMD's statement (or our history page) that he is not the founder. Thus, I think the LA Times isn't wrong, just that it could have been worded better.

I do acknowledge that it's possible to jump to conclusions or to extrapolate things (like the Register did), but such interpretations go beyond what the article actually says. Lipson is the only named first-generation member, so some people might assume this means he has the highest status. But that's not what the LA Times article says, and it's not what Lipson himself says.

That is why I consider the LA Times piece accurate, but not the Register piece. --Sid (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of specificity. If George bought a domain and then he, John, Paul and Ringo all got together to work on it it would be fair to say that Ringo and some others started the website, or Paul and some others started the website; it would, however, be unsupported and inaccurate to then claim that Ringo founded the site. --Opcn (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have copied my user talk page reply from March 25 over to the Wikipedia talk page. If Rob or anybody else wishes to engage me there about content, that's fine. But I have better things to do than playing Rob's games. It's been almost a week, for crying out loud. --Sid (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit counter

Thanks, that is sort of what I wanted. I understand letting people grandstand by getting on "the list" is a bad idea, but eventually it is funny to see how many people have threatened to sue us/you. ħuman 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If people are really interested something could be worked out to link the counter to the bar or something. tmtoulouse 09:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

6 times? Wow. Scientology on that list? Aceⁱ⁹ 09:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And this one? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While being sued would be unfortunate it would probably raise our notability WP standards.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Let see:

1. The crazy bishop
2. El Naschie
3. The Aetherius Society
4. Dembski
5. TK
6. Karajou

But then there was:

• Half veiled threat Denyse O'leary
• Andy's copyright claims

tmtoulouse 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you should call the Bishop crazy. I think the officially approved form of address is "weirdo".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review forum

Care to join the discussion here? nobs^{don't bother me} 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Donation button

What do you think of the donation button on rationalbeta? It's inserted using javascript and it can be hidden (for three weeks, using cookies - of course hiding permanently using css is also possible). -- Nx / talk 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it, certainly better than what we have, probably better to keep its location below the toolboxes maybe? By the way all the new toys look really interesting. I hadn't heard of liquid thread I am going to have to explore it. tmtoulouse 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay to keep it there since it can be dismissed (I feel the current one is too far down, and not prominent enough). Anyway, the MW extension that does it is maybe a bit overkill for our needs, I only installed it because it was pretty and because I was too lazy to program the javascript hiding. I also think the text is too much, and there are variants without the text, but those don't have an x button so there's no obvious way to dismiss them. -- Nx / talk 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it looked good, but since I dismissed it out of curiosity I can't see it again to really give feedback... ħuman 07:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, once you've hidden it, it's gone and there's no immediately obvious way of bringing it back. Or people might just get into the habit of clearing it (the same way people zone out of pop-ups or ads) and getting annoyed when it comes back again and again. ^sshole 11:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please screenshot it and post it here? Also, I see the 3 week thing making sense - either I donated or can't afford it this month, it comes back next month. Sort of. ħuman 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to clear a cookie to make it come back, it's called hidefrportal. I can make it permanent in its current location (using the current method, i.e. no javascript so it works for everyone), then use javascript to move it up to below the logo. If you dismiss it, it goes back to its not so annoying position. -- Nx / talk 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disabling view counters

I looked at the server during the worst period, and it didn't look like cpu or memory was a problem. (load avg was around 0.5, memory was 60-70%). My guess is that the bottleneck was mysql updating view counters. We have two options to deal with this: Disable them completely (and say goodbye to Special:Popularpages) using $wgDisableCounters, or use $wgHitcounterUpdateFreq to lessen the load on the database (at the cost of exact numbers some slight delay in reporting the numbers). I wouldn't mind disabling them completely. -- Nx / talk 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why most MW installations abandon view counters when they gain any popularity - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I like having these numbers - so, I'd prefer to keep at least the less exact version! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction: the numbers stay exact, except they are not updated after every single view. -- Nx / talk 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia now has accurate numbers, because Domas set up something to dump slightly-massaged data direct from the squid logs and Henrik set up http://stats.grok.se based on those logs - and they do provide accurate numbers, catching every page view. Setting up such an arrangement here and making the numbers display right there on the page would be programming work no-one anywhere has bothered doing yet, though - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday saw an almost 100 fold increase in our hourly traffic, while the problems kicked in probably before that level I don't think we are at the point yet where we have to implement any drastic changes. If this problem starts to occur several times in a month, then its probably time to figure out what to do about it. In the mean time I think the status quo is probably okay to stick with, and we can explore secondary options such as mining the server logs directly. tmtoulouse 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure this was the source of the problem, and unless someone has a botnet, we can't really test it. -- Nx / talk 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if/when base traffic levels increase to the point it starts to cause regular issues testing will become easier too. tmtoulouse 18:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update

I tried setting it to 5000 when I experienced slowdowns again, and it didn't really help. I also ran some profiling, and the time spent on view counters was insignificant compared to some of the heavier stuff. -- Nx / talk 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm not "out to get" anyone, I'm really interested in what's best for all three wiki projects and contributors. And I'm in the unique position to be effective at this. Welcome to the real world [2] outside the lab. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm... tmtoulouse 00:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

no-bs actually stands for no-bullshit, an internet moniker I've had for 12 or 14 years now. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So why have you so spectacularly ineffective with your inexplicable efforts over the last month to get some sort of change effected at WP:CP? ħuman 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling isn't really all that "unique", you know. --Kels (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

EC) If I read things aright, he's only back here if he doesn't discuss the WP thing. So no fair baiting him. AGF User:SusanG 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Personally, I don't much care if he mentions it, or discusses it in a civilized way. But if he goes back to harassing users with it and making wild accusations like he was doing before, I'll be happy to put a two-month block on his ass. But of course I don't speak for everyone. --Kels (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You speak for me at least. User:SusanG 01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone asks him or is talking about it I am not going to restrict him from defending himself, but I dont want to see him going around calling me a liar on 5 different talk pages. Ideally he can find something different to bug us about. tmtoulouse 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see him return to his usual stream-of-idiot style and maybe explain how everything that was Clinton's fault during the Bush years is now Obama's fault because of Mao or something. That stuff was quality lulz. --Kels (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I fretted a bit before making my comment, but I felt it hi-fucking-larious enough to not be crossing the triple-wiki panic line. I yearn to see Rob do some "NPOV" work on our Clinton snarticle. ħuman 03:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll get the Jeff Toobin cite shortly (hopefully) followed by two chapter and verse cites from the Star Report. We have an obligation to posterity to get it right. Think of the children.... nobs^{don't bother me} 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor is way ahead of you on that one. --Kels (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I really don't think it's worth this much of your time and energy. Isn't there something more important you could be doing with your time? Will any of this matter three years down the line, or ten? Or does it even matter now? Seriously. Refugee^{talk page} 02:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What if Jesus returns before the Republicans take back Congress in November? That may be our only hope.... nobs^{don't bother me} 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You post-tribulation rapture heretic, true theology points out that Republicans couldn't win under that scenario since they would all be raptured to Heaven.tmtoulouse 16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you know Hitler's favorite composer, Richard Wagner wrote of the rapture, Wann dröhnt er, der Vernichtungschlag, mit dem die Welt zusammenkracht? and Tag des Gerichtes! Jüngster Tag! which being translated is something like Day of Judgment! Day of doom! When will you dawn and end my night? When will the blow of annihilation resound which shall crack the world asunder?

I thought the rapture was supposed to be a joyous occassion? or perhaps you could make the argument Hitler and his inspiration were fundementalist right-wing bible thumpers. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob please, just chill out.. go outside, look at the beautiful blue sky and white clouds, feel the sun on your face and the wind in your hair, smell the colorful flowers, smile at a stranger, pet a dog, and just enjoy being human... live and love... Refugee^{talk page} 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding drama and HCM

Hey Trent, I've been thinking about this for a few days and just wanted to say I thought you handled the waron situation very well - it's always difficult to know how to approach that type of thing, especially not knowing how genuine it is, and unless someone takes the initiative these things tend to escalate and upset people, so, good job. Refugee^{talk page} 02:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Second post!

Hooray for surviving update! - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done, but progress was made, and the site is in a usable state. Going to get some sleep. Will aim to finish things up this weekend. tmtoulouse 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Cool, huh?

First: now I know what you mean about trying to prove that people think using Bayesian reasoning. The paper sounds very interesting, is it available online anywhere?

Second: my browser (Safari) knows you. I thought it was pretty cool. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My star is on the rise! I have a bunch of conference papers (linked from my user page). However, the full papers on my research are sitting in a "almost final draft" state on my desk (much to the chagrin of my supervisor). I have some fun research right now using a paradigm similar to sensory integration with reinforcement learning that should really help nail down whether people are "bayesian like" in their learning and decision making. tmtoulouse 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool!

You live in Hamilton? I live in Buffalo, right over the border. Kinda cool to know RW is somewhat local for me. Cheers! --rational ghey (send a message) 02:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken lives in Buffalo, you two should catch up. - π 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's rather depressing. Ugh. Sad, buffalo is a fairly liberal place. rational ghey (send a message) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sloooow

The wiki is horribly slow (on my end at least). Are we getting hit again? -- Nx / talk 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way, there is about 40 apache processes running right now, and we are at 95-100 percent of our upload bandwidth. tmtoulouse 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We've been Pharyngulated! --Kels (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. That was really nice of him to link to us. Also, the comments there are full of awesome win and funny. ħuman 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And again Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on that, I think we might want to look into building upon our PZ article. It's okay, but not particularly extensive, I'm sure he's done more than ride a triceratops and steal a cracker! ^sshole 15:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So long but best wishes

Hi Trent - I'm a minor admirer of yours and I really like what RationalWiki is all about, but I'm going to back out of participating. I recognize that Human has done lots of great stuff around here, but she's afflicted with her "Ize Senior Listen to Me!" syndrome a little too much. That's fine, these people exist everywhere, but dealing with her isn't how I want to waste my time.

I think the articles I expanded[3][4], fixed[5] or created[6][7] are decent (they can always be better!) but I'm tired of a pedant who, when I disagree with her, turns it into a Big Time Sink of an edit battle. Insulting my attempts at WIGO's and insult-editing every single thing I contribute when there are mounds of crap all over the site is one thing. Putting lists at the top of articles doesn't make sense. Removing useful information because you don't like the wording hardly serves RationalWiki's purpose. Questioning without cause my grasp of a subject that it needs someone with real knowledge to overlook it. I am tired of the Tourettes.

The problem is me, of course, because my patience has run out. I don't have a blinding desire to contribute but only wanted to help out a little. So, I wish you and the rest of the people, even Human, best of luck on the site, but I have many, many other ways to spend my time. Keep up the good work, regardless. --Leotardo (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a well established fact that Human has a history of being extremely rude to new editors, and of throwing extremely immature tantrums when his opinion is overridden. Evil harmonic Hoover! 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it is his wiki. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is always sad when an editor leaves because they didn't like it here. Sometimes we can do something about it, and sometimes we can't. Human does not have any more power or say so over this site than any other of our many bureaucrats, and once you get past those user rights he is on par with everyone else. So the issue isn't that Human can force anything on anyone by virtue of his (and it is his btw :) ) status in the community isn't true. At root this is a conflict between two editors that I didn't notice, and not sure if others did as well. There will always be conflicts of editors on a wiki by its very nature.

If you are feeling overwhelmed by or picked on by a particular editor seeking out assistance from the community in an obvious place would likely have offered some solace, and some better conflict management. I think perhaps maybe we should implement some place that a brand new user who has a problem can easily find and turn to get the attention of the community. It may not be obvious what they should do. That is one change we could make. But we can't fix the fact that people work will be edited and sometimes there will be conflict.

It is a volunteer project, and if you feel your time here is wasted, or you are not enjoying it than definitely seek out a better home, and I wish you well as you wish the community well. I have enjoyed our interactions and appreciate your contributions. You are welcome back at anytime, and if you have some specific ideas on how we can improve the site or community management feel free to pass those along as well. tmtoulouse 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In Human's defense, while it is easy as fuck for us to just say "that's Human for you," I've been looking at exchanges between them, and this Leotardo guy is just as, if not more, guily of being a drama queen than Human. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I wasn't trying to say anyone was right or wrong in this exchange, merely making the point that 1) Human is just a user, so doesn't win by default, so no need to feel threatened in that department and 2) that this is a conflict between two editors on a wiki, something we can't really "fix" as it is part of the game. Two established users in a conflict know how to seek assistance from other users. But a new user may not, which is why I put the idea out there of establishing some sort of obvious area for new users to get opinions or help for whatever issues they might have until they learn that the Saloon Bar is where to go. tmtoulouse 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you were coming from, but I was mostly refering to the comments above yours where everyone goes "That's just Human." It's been getting on my nerves a little bit here that every time Human is involved in a conflict, people automatically assume that he's in the wrong. I've been lurking about the conflict between these two, and I am of the belief that this Leotardo guy is just as in the wrong as Human. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, conflicts are never black or white, they are complex human interactions, and unless you take the approach of deleting and banning sources of conflict they have to be managed somehow. We can't avoid conflicts on a wiki without some sort of ridiculous policy ala CP but we can always look for ways to improve the systematic approach and the infrastructure we offer to improve what we can offer in ways of conflict management on the site. People may not opt to take what we offer, but if there is a gapping whole than maybe we can learn something and improve as a site. tmtoulouse 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt on CP:Daniel Brandt

Thought you'd find this amusing. --Leotardo (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I got pwned, I clicked the link thinking it was on WP:, didn't notice the wiki I was on and went to edit the talkpage. For 1.2 seconds I thought I was blocked from WP! Favorite comment: "But it still has 138 footnotes. The scraped bio has only 31 footnotes." As if that matters. ħuman 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Ha, I found another way to stock you! ^{— Unsigned, by: Iamusername / talk / contribs}

i dare u 2...

turn off the server for three hours. why? just to prove a point. 66.19.208.162 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
no you should redirect all traffic to cp. or save that idea for april 1st... 66.19.208.162 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would Trent want to do that? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See Neveruses talk page, I make a much better accidental villain. tmtoulouse 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed it and all I can think is, "huh." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A true criminal genius would have sent him some hot pockets and then sat back and waited. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tetronian, do you have aspergers? You seem to have absolutely no social intelligence whatsoever. 86.45.205.96 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

*yawn* This makes it about the third time you've asked, MC. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And its the third time you haven't answered. I don't care if you are or not, but it would explain quite a lot. 86.45.197.107 (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's been done before. Just before I officially joined RW went through a massive uproar that resulted in a very senior administrator yanking the database. Trent isn't the sort of person to do that, however. ^sshole 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

new sig requirement

trent your new forced signature thing is pissing me off. 67.159.36.22 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. But it's not his, it's mine. -- Nx / talk 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What does this "forced sig" they speak of do, exactly? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejects the edit if it's unsigned. -- Nx / talk 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow.

Nope. Evidently someone decided against that... ^sshole 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm...

Pity, seemed like a good idea. How about just changing it to "automated signing"? ħuman 00:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to give you money.

You need money to keep this pig running, yes? You have a PayPal account, yes? You can leave me the relevant info on my talk page, yes? Thanks, Trent.... DarkStar (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an orange button in the left margin under the toolbox. Click on it & all shall be revealed. 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that button? The one that's so hard to see because it's so large and brightly coloured? No wonder he's going broke on this project. Will take care of this when I'm back home on a less-insecure connection. Many thanks, Susan. DarkStar (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The beta one is far more intrusive and noticeable. ^sshole 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Still messing with mirroring

I've only just realised I'm going to need to duplicate a pile of Nx's wacky extensions to make a proper content mirror %-D Still, the dump imports fine ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should put out a "rw_mediawiki_patch". tmtoulouse 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Or run DumpHTML from the server! This will produce a static dump from the original instance. I'll keep playing though ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

link capture bot for Conservapedia links?

Is the source code for the capture bot that the WIGO uses available? I'm thinking about using something with similar functionality on my local machines (capturing different websites too) and even though I'm probably using a different language (python) than that code, if it's available I'd still love to peruse it and learn from it. Thanks! Pythonscript (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your research

This sounds like it has something to do with some of the research you mentioned to me previously, except that it suggests that we are naturally frequentist rather than naturally Bayesian. But I thought you might be interested anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the "in" things these days is to go back and look at all that research proving people were poor, biased reasoners and reevaluate it in terms of the effects of the laboratory settings. The work cited in that post is part of this research trend. It is actually amazing how well people do when you restructure questions and reasoning tasks in less arbitrary lab settings.

At the heart of all of this is that people are probabilistic in their reasoning, and apply a probabilistic approach that is designed to work in the "real world" but breaks when you strip it down to a single question with no context. What is interesting is that in order to "prove" this different researchers reformulate problems in either a Bayesian framework or a frequintist framework depending on their own preferences and theories. The above link talked about frequintist experiments but check out here for a recasting of cognitive biases using a Bayesian framework.

So at the moment whether people's conscious, deliberate reasoning is Bayesian or frequintist or some mixture of both depends more on the research paradigm than any definitive body of work.

However, what I am interested in is more of the unconscious reasoning. This is the way the brain integrates cellular firing information to make sense of the world. This kind of learning and modeling I think has some very strong evidence that it is Bayesian like in nature. The biggest difference in predictions between frequintist and Bayesian approaches lies in integrating multiple probabilities together. Bi-modal sensory information shows that it is integrated in a Bayesian like fashion, and I am trying to get an experiment up and running that does something similar for trial and error reinforcement learning. So we shall see. tmtoulouse 16:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and thanks for the link. But now you've piqued my curiosity: how would you go about testing this in reinforcement learning? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

extension for imagemap

Did you get my very important email? ħuman 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit low priority but I will try and get to ti. tmtoulouse 01:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as I said, whenever is ok. ħuman 01:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Minutes etc.

RationalWiki:Board of Trustees ħuman 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. tmtoulouse 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They are over here now. Feel free to move them around but want to bring up a point with you on skype first. tmtoulouse 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Petition to the constitutional monarch

I know you are quite a lot like a constitutional monarch and hence do not exert your executive authority regularly, but really you should do something about David Gerard and his flagrant abuses of this site. 86.40.206.75 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, establish a petition that clearly outlines these abuses, and get 20 active editors to sign on to the petition and I will address using whatever authority I have. tmtoulouse 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you really approve of what they are up to now? I mean really? Rangeblocks and checkuser? This site is now officially a joke. 86.40.110.220 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only time there is an issue is when you show up. Congratulations you are a successful troll, but from a meta-perspective about running RW and growing the RW community it doesn't matter in the least. What it comes down to is your a caustic element on this website, that is not an insult that's a fact that you have states was your goal and you are proud of, the community has decided they don't want you around anymore. They are pursuing tools to keep one person, you, away. Yes you can circumvent these tools, yes you can continue being a troll and there is nothing really we can do about it. But I am also not going to get worked up into some ideological frenzy over this. If the tools are implemented or used, and there is no consensus on that yet, I will monitor how they are used. If they are only used to try and keep you way from the site then, no, I am not too concerned about it. If they are used more broadly in a way I disagree with I will bring that up, as will others. The nice thing about the wiki, everything can be undone. tmtoulouse 00:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems like we're holding a rather heavy hammer over the soul jar... ^sshole 00:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, nothing has been decided yet, and I think it is a bit over kill for one person. Pro-tip, the amount of effort to block an IP address for a few days is far, far less effort than it takes to get a new one. He is having to unplug his modem, wait 5 minutes, plug it back in, repeat. I say we just block as they pop up. tmtoulouse 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, you know that requires people to act maturely. ^sshole 08:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DPL bug

Remember when Toast crashed the wiki with a dpl query of her contribs? Then I turned on DPL's unlimited mode (public static $allowUnlimitedResults in DPLSetup.php, for some reason the global variable doesn't work). I now noticed that this completely breaks the forum (see User:Nx/sandbox, the %TOTALPAGES% variable doesn't return the true total number of pages, so the forum doesn't show the "more threads" link, and paging doesn't work). Also you should change your password. -- Nx / talk 07:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the fix, please apply it as soon as you can. -- Nx / talk 07:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't set allowUnlimitedResults to false, it can crash the wiki. -- Nx / talk 07:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

An idea for RationalWikiWiki

A newbie asked me on my page if his RationalWiki account allowed editing at other wikis. That got me thinking of a way of reinvigorating RationalWikiWiki somewhat and also prevent possible id theft by installing this extension. I doubt it would do much in that direction, but since they are one the same server it seems silly for anyone to have to login twice. - π 13:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, actually. Universal logins are going to be the future. ^sshole 14:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the page & others it seems not to be a good idea. this seems preferable. 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please 404 server ban me

Please. See this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Rangeblock_and_404_server_ban_me_please 86.40.108.71 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

will you or won't you? 86.40.204.240 (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For fuck sake, are you going to do this or not? I repeat - I am INCAPABLE of preventing myself from visiting this forum. ERGO the only solution is to 404 server ban me. Please don't whinge when I'm still here in a couple of months. 86.40.201.208 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Trent is home for the holidays and nowhere near the server. And even if he was I doubt he would. Besides 404'ing you on this IP would just result in you popping up with another one later. If you really want to stay away, use willpower. Or stay off the web for a bit. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought a 404 ban bans the computer not the IP (I'm computer illiterate by the way) I just want freedom from this site. Every time I log on it gets me down. Gerard is either making a gazillion edits like a wikipedian on steroids or some little shit like IamEphilias is editing thousands of articles with 'Category, Politics'. I just can't take it anymore. 86.40.201.208 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If we annoy you that much, then don't click on us. Delete us from your bookmarks. Visit Happy Tree Friends instead. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Or better yet try hanging around somewhere else. After all, nothing like getting your mind off of one wiki like hanging around another. May I suggest for you a Wiki more in-tune with your level of maturity. I'm sure they would welcome one such as you with open arms. Anyway, we really need to quit feeding this troll/drama queen. Let him wallow around in his self-induced misery and destroy whatever credibility/likability he might have had with his incoherent ranting while the rest of us get on with our lives. --IAMELIPHAS (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot do that. I wish I could, but I can't. Not while Gerard is allowed to run free on this site. I NEED TO BE FORCIBLY PREVENTED FROM VIEWING HERE. Only then will I have any kind of inner peace, and only then will you lot be able to move on with the project to make this website into a dorks version of wikiepdia. 86.40.201.208 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, there is always going to be somebody wrong on the internet. Now how you deal with it, is your problem. But carrying on the way you do, does not exactly garner a sympathetic audience for your views - something which has been said many times. If you have a problem with David, then sort it out with him. Don't make RW your battleground. Now, take a step back and take several, nay many, deep breaths. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And especially quit trolling userpages of people that have nothing to do with him. Or RW politics at all. Seriously, if you got some problem with David, take it out with him like Psy said. IAMELIPHAS (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Listen here you boring little wanker, we don't need your kind here (Taken from your profile; I also don't do Rw politics. I just do what has to be done around here. Thats it.) Get a girlfriend, a blowjob and a shit load of drugs. You are surplus to requirements and a drain on humanity. You symbolise everything that is going wrong with this site, full as it is with wikipedian nerds spending all their time doing useless boring shit no-one could give a shit about. Now fuck off and find the back door to humanity, as you'll never be able to even see the front entrance, you pathetic dweeb. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IAMELIPHAS (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A long overdue and well deserved pat on the back

For services to this Wiki that we can only begin to comprehend, and for kicking soooo much butt you kick ass, I hereby give you a pat on the back, courtesy of the RW Pat-On-The-Back Society. Congrats, and thank you. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 06:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Make public traffic statistics

On the blog it says that a very popular page was the one with the tumbleweeds. That's kinda funny. Would it be possible to make public the traffic stats for the top 100 pages? Maybe something about which pages are being viewed by IP's that are shared, unshared, RW editors, or not RW editors? Maybe something "real-time" like Recent Changes, called "Recent Browsing"?

One reason I often prefer to edit talk pages rather than mainspace is because editors are more likely to respond to talk page edits and we are less likely to get feedback with mainspace editing. ~ Lumenos 02:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to really tell whether an ip address is shared or not, or whether it belongs to an RW editor or not since we don't store or access IP information from RW editors. It is sometimes difficulty to track down exactly what is going on in a traffic spike and involves a lot of snooping on my part. Such as follow referrals or manually reading logs. I do post monthly traffic analysis on RW where you can get some idea of what is going on. tmtoulouse 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)