RationalWiki:Saloon bar

You have new messages (last change).

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.

edit

Daily Telegraph

For those who do not read the non-CP WIGOs there is a new one in WIGO:Blogs which is pretty much culled from our series on Internet Laws. We get a few linkbacks for some of them (but not all, even for those which are RW specific). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

4 links in one article ain't bad. If any Telegraph readers come here though they'll probably have adverse reactions. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point... Tell 'em Telegraph "CRICKET!!!" ^{d hominem} 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell was Rob Pommer? Educated word Phantom! 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cracker? ^{d hominem} 19:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

@toast:If any Telegraph readers come here though they'll probably have adverse reactions - but at least they'll know how to make tea properly. Totnesmartin 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a wikipedia article now? Ace^McWicked 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dare someone with some street cred on WP to suggest that. Educated word Phantom! 21:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but remember the guys who were mostly against it (and Poe's Law) were pretty much all over it and had Trent banned for a week or something. I'm liking the comments, that one from "Steve Foley" is either taking it all too seriously (in which case I pity them) or trying to take the piss out of people who take it seriously (and failed, thus I still pity them). Still, some of the other proposals are pretty good. ^{d hominem} 11:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I love the fact Ken is now internationally famous. - π 12:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I let him know on his aSoK talk page. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, he responded. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to get an article on Skitt’s Law. - π 13:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. If I knew they were going to do that, I'd have actually coined my own law, I definitely have one formulated. ^{d hominem} 13:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think WP's notability guidelines suggest that a site has to be the subject of an article. Still, an article like this clearly shows we're on the right track. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably isn't notable enough. Though, I notice that I really can't find any proper references to this "poetry" one that the guy who shoved it out of the WP article put in. It's certainly not commonly used. A few people in recent months have been like "oh, it's Poe's law about Edgar Allen Poe" but I'm convinced this is because for the last few months WP has topped RW on the Google search, and of course, WP has refused to acknowledge "our" Poe's Law (well, strictly, one of the admins on a power trip and a vendetta against Trent refused to let it in, I'm also partly convinced its the same guy who wandalised the article with the "stupid atheist blogs" comment). ^{d hominem} 08:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

<(UD) I guess most people haven't bothered to revisit this article but I notice that now there are two posts from PJR and one from TK. The PJR ones look genuine but is the TK one a parodist? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Damnit, I wanted to add my own but the comments system seems to be broken now. Crundy's law: The aggressiveness and unreasonableness of an internet poster is inversely proportional to their grammar and spelling skills. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The list has made it to Pharyngula now too. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If PZ coins his own law we'll have to have it immediately! You know, posterity and all that. ^{d hominem} 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I want one of those

Also from the Torygraph - Dyson's latest invention, the bladeless fan. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that asshole and his crazy-awesome inventions I can't afford. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny time of year to launch a fan. Aylesburymartin 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that a while ago. Hasn't it got a fan in the base to give the airflow a start? "The Air Multiplier works by sucking in one unit of air at the base, and pushing it out at speed through a thin gap in the fan's ring." I don't think it's what it sort of claims to be. (bernouli^(?) effect springs to mind)^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems like it changes the place where the fan actually is. It's not like it's some other mechanism such as a screw. Like the AirBlade, that wasn't really anything new, it was just a normal bloody hand dryer with the power cranked up to 11. ^{d hominem} 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He's really hung up about all this buffeting from a normal fan. I hope I don't start to notice it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My (many) fans often buffet me, sometimes I can't walk down the street unbuffeted - bloody paparazzi. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If I can't have your autograph then you could at least throw me some crumbs. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a buffet if it's only just a salad bar. --Kels 12:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Last minute holloween costume ideas

I need some. Preferably in the next 8 minutes. Thanks. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Last year my 11th hour Halloween costume, believe it or not, was Alger Hiss. I just dressed as 50's as possible (suit, thin tie, fedora, cigarette) and wrote CONFIDENTIAL on a manila folder with random papers in it. Some people actually figured out who I was.

I was really hammered before going to this halloween party a few years back, cant remember what I on but I remember hunting around my bedroom (which was a fucking nightmare of mess) and ended up grabbing some of the filthy porno I had lying around and tying it to my chest with a network cable. My costume - Internet Porn. Thought it was pretty clever for guy who was barely functioning. Ace^McWicked 21:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a sheet with a couple of eye-holes too obvious?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you don't want to show up at the party in the same outfit as Ed Poor. 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the lost camper. Some dirty jeans, a dirty coat, a hat and a flashlight, maybe a little fake blood and your all set--Thanatos 22:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hype how you will be a ninja, or a pirate or a hacker or some shit, then come dressed as a Catholic cardinal. When people start going WTF?, scream at them "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!111!1!1!". Lulz should insue if British people are nearby --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A sheet with three holes - one at the crotch. You're an Orthodox Jewish rapist ghost.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 03:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Last year I shaved my head, added some fake blood to my forehead, and became GG Allin. This year I'm trying Captain Lou Albano. Couple of rubber bands, a Hawaiian shirt, and a graying wig. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 14:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Do what I did in my freshman year. Get a decent set of clothes that you would usually wear, and go as one of the pod people. Extra points if you can set up squirting green 'blood' to compliment the ensemble. -- CodyH 12:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone seen this nutball shit?

I know Ann "Horse-Face" Coulter is a loon but this takes the cake...Ace^McWicked 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth was hardly a liberal. Timothy McVeigh belong to a far-right Christian Identity movement. - π 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the guy who shouted her down and said "YOU are a hate crime"? I want to shake his hand and tell him that next time around he has my blessing to break her already deformed nose. If you want something deliberately inflammatory while simultaneously outright wrong, you can't go much further that that bitch. ^{d hominem} 11:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I think its still somewhat open to interpretation whether or not Timothy McVeigh was a racist. Sure, he read and sold The Turner Diaries, but that book was a mixture of extreme racism and extreme anti-gun control, and there's no question he was against gun control. Also, according to his wikipedia page last time I checked they interviewed his family and former roommate who said he was pretty much indifferent to racial matters. Granted, he certainly wasn't marching for Civil Rights, but I'd be willing to buy that he was so anti-government that he just ignored everything else (still, that hardly makes him a "liberal").--Mustex 01:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many YouTube transclusions?

I don't know what others think about this, but personally I think that YouTube transclusion thing is getting used waaayy too much here at the Saloon bar.

I can see its advantage in a few RW articles where a video is really relevant, but in the bar it's just seems like an attention-hogging waste of space. In a lot of cases the threads that start with a video don't provoke much of a discussion anyway (just look further up this page) but they take up more space on the page than a lot of other sections. Can't we go back to just posting links to YouTube?

Alternatively, just put one video up at the top of the page, as a kind of bar-room TV, and change the tape periodically evey few days. That way if people want to comment on it, they can start a discussion below, but if they don't, it would be easy to ignore, like the jukebox.

Any thoughts? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

One YouTube transclusion is one too many. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will never open this page on my phone or laptop. When I asked Trent to install this extension it was more to look at clogo and rebuttals on YouTube a la Banana fallacy. A link that says "check out this video here" is just as effective and doesn't cost us nearly as much CPU time and bandwidth. - π 10:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That was the original intention, but like any novelty feature, it'll get overused. Linking to YouTube is much better anyway as with the embedded things you can't use YouTube's features like ratings, comments or the "see also" bits. If some one wants to exercise AUTHORITA and cut them down, that's fine by me. ^{d hominem} 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a good point, links are the way to go. Javasca₧ My computer has two mowses! 14:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have exercised authoritae -- Nx / talk 14:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods, you'd think we were living in an age of 800bps modems, not an age where everyone wanders round with a 1.5Mbps+ broadband connection in their pockets. What exactly is the problem with putting a video on this page? I don't get it. The flash is always cached, so if you don't click play it doesn't take any time to load. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I seem to remember that the main point of your complaint about my old sig was that the 5 people who don't have decent browsers wouldn't be able to tell who I was. Educated word Phantom! 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never reached 500 kbs. I dream of a decent broadsband connection. I'm downloading a 863 MB file now - it's varying between 3 & 11 hours estimated. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not the connection speed that's the problem, it's flash itself. -- Nx / talk 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

UTC)

Of course when I was a lad we had it tough, my first modem was 1200/300 baud. (Does anyone even use that term any more?) Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. Between me going to bed at maybe 130 this morning and staggering back from brunch someone managed to discern consensus of the mob and disable embedded YouTube videos. WHAT THE FUCK. Issues like this don't get raised and resolved within 12 hours. This is an issue that could much more effectively been dealt with by discussing a policy change rather than enforcing a small number of users' will by fiat and without anything even remotely approaching adequate consideration by the community at large. I agree that embedding videos should be done sparingly on high traffic pages for any number of reasons including those mentioned. But what I do on my userpage or post on my pals' talkpages is none of your fucking business. Don't like embedded videos or my taste in electro and hip hop? Ok then make a point of avoiding my userspace and Ace, Human, Rad, etc's talkpages. This situation was handled really poorly. 17:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was on the saloon bar -- Nx / talk 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nx, please fix embedded video pending a real consensus on the issue. A policy change is always preferable to removing functionality from the wiki. 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I already have -- Nx / talk 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

one month down

I moved into my university accommodation four weeks ago today. Fortunately, we all seem to get along and have avoided killing one another so far. As for the following 7 months, only time will tell... SJ ^Debaser 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already started making plans for extreme revenge pranks. Broccoli 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween next weekend. That'll be fun. The one girl in our house (technically there are two, but the other one never hangs out with the us) is one of those scaredy-girls, so freaking her out should be easy but highly entertaining. She'll probably try and strangle me in my sleep however. SJ ^Debaser 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my friend had a kinky girlfriend who used to do that to him as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's unsettling. SJ ^Debaser 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Naked Man Arrested in his own home

I know that I've made it pretty clear I think theamazingatheist is a jerk (I'm not alone, anon's targetted him too), but this is one of his good videos, and it makes a good point about how ridiculous this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaE0uathXJA&feature=sub --Mustex 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nudity is generally overrated. It's the covering up that exacerbates and emphasises the effect of nakedness. On a nudist beach where everyone is naked then nobody gives a damn. In fact the sight of most people naked is distinctly nonsexual. All that Adam & Eve with their fig-leaves crap only serves to draw attention to nakedness when it's the most natural thing in the world. Humans are born naked, and every other creature on this planet is naked for their entire lives, yet somehow our societies have inculcated the belief that this is a "bad thing". Bollocks! - from someone who occasionally also wanders around the house au naturel. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting actually. When did nudity start becoming unacceptable? Is there even anywhere in the Bible which condemns it? I've never read it. SJ ^Debaser 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is another one on the subject. Probably the funniest thing Argumental has done yet. ^{d hominem} 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

SuperJosh asks: When did nudity start becoming unacceptable? Is there even anywhere in the Bible which condemns it? Nudity probably became unacceptable when people started to get cold after leaving Africa. In some nice warm countries nudity only became unacceptable when European missionaries told them it was sinful. According to the hallucinations of some bronze age shepherds Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness after being convinced to eat an apple by a talking snake.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't like being naked in my own home, partially because I don't like being reminded of my love handles, and partially because I have a somewhat irrational fear of anything sharp/rough coming into accidental contact with my genitals.--Mustex 00:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I loathe nudists with a deep passion. Genitals flopping everywhere. MarcusCicero 10:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Bob. Full frontal nudity? Yes, I'd do it if it was relevant. SJ ^Debaser 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Body piercing

While I am too old to really appreciate the aesthetics of pierced tongues/nipples/labia/foreskins/clitorises surely these vegetarians are just going way over the top. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Apologies for another Telegraph posting.

It's not natural to eat animals, but it is to shove assault rifles through your cheeks? SJ ^Debaser 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I liked the dude with the coils of wire. ħuman 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost call Photoshop on the whole thing, but I've read enough issues of Bizarre to know that this shit really does happen. ^{d hominem} 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My word. If that's what the vegetarians get up to, I wonder what the vegans do?--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some pretty bizarre piercings before, but these are way more over-the-top than any I've seen in person. I'm pretty sure they aren't photoshopped, but....wow. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright backwards?

Ok, I have a question concerning copyright laws that occurred to me when I was considering the name "Alucard" ("Dracula" spelled backwards). Ok, for those of you unfamiliar with the name, it originated in the movie "Son of Dracula" in the 1940s, starring Lon Chaney Jr. as Count Dracula, who used the name as a pseudonymn (if you're curious, the movie itself was somewhat confusing about whether he was merely A Count Dracula, and the son of the original Universal Dracula, or THE Count Dracula in a different continuity. He was simply called "Count Dracula" in the film, and the title seems to either be a holdover from earlier drafts of the script, or the result of some scenes being cut. Production was so rushed during this era either is believable). In the last three decades "Alucard" has shown up in several works as either a traveling name Dracula uses (The Batman vs Dracula and arguably Hellsing), or the name of Dracula's son (Castlevania).

Now, here's my question: The novel Dracula is in the public domain, the movie Son of Dracula is not. Is the name Alucard in the public domain, or do these works have to pay royalties?

I could honestly see it going either way. On the one hand, the movie was the first time the name Alucard was used, but at the same time how could it be copyright infringement if in a Dracula-based work Dracula merely said "I can't use my real name...I'll just reverse it!" and his name reversed just happened to be the same as the name Universal used? Furthermore what if, for some inexplicable reason, someone decided to publish the book Dracula with all the text backwards so people could read it in the mirror (not saying it would be logical, just arguing legality here)? "Alucard" would be printed in the book over and over again because its "Dracula" backwards?

I could maybe see the argument that if a character named "Alucard" was Dracula's son (as in Castlevania) it would be copyright infringement, but then what if the son uses it as a pseudonymn, or its a cousin or nephew?--Mustex 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's no big deal. In Helsing, the main character is a vampire named Alucard, but is really Dracula. A name is hard to copyright. Two of my past usernames were those of anime characters (Tabris and Nate River). Characters can be copyrighted, but I do not believe names can be.--Thanatos 01:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I don't think your user names are a very good example, since you weren't deriving a profit from them.--Mustex 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but you mentioned both Castlevania and Helsing. They both use the name Alucard, and they make profits. Alucard is a name tied to Dracula, will always be associated with Dracula, but not exclusive to that one movie. Someone might have used the name Alucard before that.--Thanatos 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I was guessing that they might just pay royalties.--76.18.115.64 14:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And having been on a Star Trek forum (*shudder*) where everyone is fighting over who gets the username Captain Kirk, I can tell you that usernames really can't break copyright very easily. And of course, just mentioning or using something doesn't necessarily violate copyright - for instance, Space Marine is copyrighted by Games Workshop, but it doesn't stop people using the term many many times. They just can't create their own thing and use that name to describe it and then sell it. And I don't think the name Alucard would qualify for copyright, anyway. ^{d hominem} 12:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can Register a Trade Mark, but that only protects it where there's likely to be confusion: Swan kettles & Swan Matches come to mind. Wasn't there a Mr (or Mrs) MacDonald in Scotland who was sued by (guess who) for calling his caff Macdonald's. Of course there's "To boldly go" which is copyright I understand. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is. At least I can't find a mention of it being so. ^{d hominem} 13:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think claiming copyright on a single character name would be tough. (Trademarks are a different matter of course as they uniquely identify a product.) Secondly "Alucard" was simply another name for the character "Dracula" - not a new character anyway. Could I claim copyright on "Nazrat" if I wrote a new Tarzan story? I doubt it.--Bob^{Not Jim} 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters and other items are an intellectual property and their creator can control use of such in perpetuity. [Warning:the following contains Dr Who geekdom] Terry Nation, for instance, got rich (one the very few tv writers to do so) because he kept hold of his rights to the Daleks. sometimes a show can't reuse a character because the creator charges too much for the right to use it. the was a big stink about the two blokes who created Superman as well, wasn't there?. So in a nutshell, there is copyright on characters. Totnesmartin 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's good with Spanish?

Hey, I'm a big fan of the Spanish version of Dracula (in 1931 it was cheaper to shoot 4 versions in different languages than to dub Lugosi's version, only the Spanish and English versions survive, and I think the Spanish version was better in every way), but I was wondering whether or not the Count speaks Spanish with an Eastern European accent. Based on these clips could anyone tell me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8txyRhZ-o9c --Mustex 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too out of line with the Spanish I usually hear, except when he says "Dracula". Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 01:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with european Spanish as spoken in Spain but it sounds OK to me. It is perhaps a little over-articulated but I'd guess that that is in keeping with the times and the nature of the film. It would have been interesting to hear a few more of the other actors speaking in Spanish to see if they spoke in South American versions of Spanish.--Bob^{Not Jim} 07:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Faux News Comments

I often read comments on Fox News stories in order to get angry/depressed/giddy with laughter. This one I found really takes the cake however..."Odumbo has nothing to offer so he resorts to this kind of smear. What else did you expect from an empty suit with a record of voting 'present'? Odumbo blows dead goats.". WTF? Ace^McWicked 03:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess someone is blowing off steam again--Thanatos 03:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I be a Sysop?

Any of you cunts want to make me a sysop? MarcusCicero 10:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given your penchant for deleting stuff when you're angry, perhaps not. I did it once but I think I got away with it Totnesmartin 10:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When have I deleted stuff when angry? MarcusCicero 10:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Having a potty mouth shouldn't stop you being a sysop - but it does. Bob Soles 10:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My potty mouth is tongue in cheek. Cunt. MarcusCicero 10:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm... no. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't. But your brother could if he wanted. RaoulDuke 12:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC):Get a fucking life MarcusCicero 13:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see the harm in letting MC be a sysop. Then we could block him to vent our frustration. _{...and now you're all going to think I'm a sock of his...} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd violate the "mostly harmless" rule. But then again, there's nothing a sysop can actually do to irrevocably bork the wiki. ^{d hominem} 12:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from deep burning stuff. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would I 'deep burn' stuff? Thats just hysteria. MarcusCicero 13:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All deletions are observable and reversible by sysops, there's no such thing as "deep burn". The only trouble that can happen is when you delete pages with lots of revisions as that causes a slight issue and you need one of Nx's special restore scripts. ^{d hominem} 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can these scripts reverse a situation where someone deletes a page and replaces it with a new page, thereby wiping the change history? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not how page deletion works. Educated word Phantom! 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Crundy goes off to try it Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, you do get a "View or restore 3 deleted edits?" after restoring the page, so the data isn't lost. Fair do's Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced that I did something by accident once involving page moves, renaming and deleting (in some order) which could only be recovered by Trent going back to the database - and even then a little bit was lost. But I can't remember the details.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm throwing in my hat to have Bob desysopped, considering these questionable practices leading to deep burns, topped off with selective memory about the details to prevent it. I sense danger. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to be a sysop? It's boring. I've been a sysop for s while, perhaps a year, and I've only had cause to use my powers once and that time there were a horde of other sysops on hand to quell the vandal. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Go on, it's basically meaningless anyway. Broccoli 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Make him a sysop. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, give him another chance, and if he goes on a rampage then block him forever. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've given MC the change. I've never had a problem with MC to be honest so he has my trust, as well as, from what I can see, the trust of a few others. So long as he stays on the meds and doesn't dick about, I'm more than happy to add him to the sysop list. ^{d hominem} 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Change"? When do the hot flushes start then?

Well that was a Freudian slip and a half... I'm sure that wasn't what I meant to say... ^{d hominem} 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Make that man a sysop like everyone else. Lots of knicker-twisting here, with the usual histrionics from the usual quarters. Its just a fucking webshite. Let him play too. If he fucks the place up, promote him back to user. What's so complicated about that? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently, he is. If we had just made him on and left it at that... Broccoli 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I conquer concur with DogP. Let him have his powers as long as he doesn't abuse them. Fucking hell, didn't we even demote RobS at one point? DickTurpis 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are all you people fucking insane? For one thing, it always used to be the case that we'd never demote someone who asked to be demoted. That's an almost sure sign they're up to no good. Secondly, don't you fuckers remember what happened last time it was decided MC was mostly harmless? As if it isn't bad enough we have to put up with this little wankstain wandering around abusing people and fucking up articles, now you want to make him a sysop? For your next trick, will you be swallowing some live grenades? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I love Jeeves. RW wouldn't be the contradiction in terms it is without him. And I must also give thanks to my fellow Irishman DogP. I go out of my way not to rile him (Out of some twisted kind of national loyalty) and it looks like he shares my vision of this place. Lookit, Jeeves is pathetic, let him whinge all he wants. There are two kinds of people on this place - liberals and autocrats. Ace, Jeeves, Susan, Thedictator, TOP, and Edgerunner are the autocrats. Ardmonikov, DogP, Genghis, Bob, Human and Broccoli the liberals. I'll write a book about it all some day. P.S- I still look at Jeeves mark one every so often. That parting shot is simply the most innane in the history of the internet. 'leaving and never coming back' is such an old trick but highly effective in notching up the drama levels. pity he came back though. 134.226.1.234 13:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously MC fuck off. Everyone you have listed has contributed more to this place in one afternoon than you have with all your bullshit and whining. I don't care what you get, you are too big of an ignoramus to actual be able to do anything destructive with it any way. With all your bluster you have done nothing more than annoy a few people and that is all you are capable of. As far as I can tell you are still having a cry that Susan said religion is bullshit and you got your little feelings hurt. Well boo fucking hoo. You can dish it out but when someone insults something you believe in you act like a petulant child. - π 13:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Something I believe in? Do you really think I'm a conservative Christian? I wouldn't expect a bigot to understand the difference between finding bigotry horrible because its bigotry, and finding bigotry horrible because its personally offensive. 134.226.1.234 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Quote

Heh, I'm liking this from David Thorne's twitter feed:
"Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are the same thing. Like a clown and a clown carrying an umbrella."
Can we add it to the ID page somewhere? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the ID article as it wasn't totally overrun by quotes anyway (I like quotes, but one or two of our articles do it too much). I think it works well. Like "ID is creationism in a cheap suit" which I think is Dawkins but it may have its origins elsewhere. ^{d hominem} 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The mostly harmless criteria for sysops

There is a reason we have this criteria for sysops. Someone with technical knowledge and a malicious streak can actually do considerable harm to each other and the wiki with sysops powers. I am not going to go into details about how that might be done so as to not give any ideas. I am not weighing in on the discussion about Marcus one way or another. He has failed to capture my interest, and even if he does have malicious intent I think he lacks the technical knowledge to do anything more then annoying. However, the meme that everything a sysops can do can be easily undone by any other sysops with no lasting effect is not actually true. Hence, why there should be some level of a judgment call made when sysopsing users. tmtoulouse 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not the one who makes any kind of decisions round here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. We can remove the most dangerous rights (editinterface, edituserjscss, bigdelete) from sysops. That would leave us pretty safe, no? -- Nx / talk 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove ActLikeAFuckingPrick as well? I think MC would probably abuse that one. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have root password to MC's brain -- Nx / talk 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2)Then I stand corrected and apologise for spreading said meme, I assumed (based on what we have written in the pages about being a sysop) that it just included patrolling edits, blocking and vandal binning users and locking/moving/deleting pages. If it is the case that sysops can do some serious damage, I think we need to start restricting sysop powers a lot more - and by extension, 'crat powers even further. There are users getting sysop powers within a minuscule number of edits these days, before they've even shown they have a proper interest in the wiki. Whereas about a year ago you almost had some time to get some edits in before getting it. While I absolutely trust Trent and Nx's opinions on how dangerous sysop powers can be if misused, if there really is a problem, then the solution needs to be applied universally, not just as an excuse to stop someone who has got under the skin of a few posters from getting it. ^{d hominem} 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur, it has been something I have been mulling around for a while. We are relatively safe because it would take someone with above average technical skills (and not just wiki skills but computers and programming in general) to really cause havoc and we haven't exactly drawn the ire of malicious computer programmers sneaking sysops rights on our site. However, the largest security issues can probably be cleaned up a bit and should be. I will discuss it with Nx, any changes shouldn't really effect anyone that I am aware of. tmtoulouse 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree (not that that means anything), and even if it did affect us I don't think most of us sysops would mind. I, for one, will not miss any of the powers you mention. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume these changes would be quite "under the hood" as it were, so wouldn't affect our policy of sysopship. However, I have thought of one issue; namely revision-delete. We use this to hide personal info that has been incorrectly uploaded here. So all it takes if someone wants to get some personal details that they suspect are held on RationalWiki is to come here, make 5-6 posts on WIGO:CP saying "look at those morons, lOL!!!" and they'll get sysoped and be able to track it down (another negatively side effect of doing it within a few edits is that well meaning editors have been insulted and left because certain 'crats take the "demotion" joke a bit too far and start telling people to get out of their sight etc. etc.). I know we haven't had any personal info that is particularly useful up here yet but some things have leaked out and as Conservapedia gets more attention, the more likely it'll come under the eyes of the real arseholes out there who will likely try to hi-jack RW for their own purposes - and if Schlafly thinks he's being persecuted by vandals now, he has no idea what can and will happen if he continues to draw attention to himself and piss people off.

As you said a few months ago, we're passing through Dunbar's Number so things may get rocky and we might want to consider restructuring how we give out user rights, or at least put some more official guidelines on the sysopship demotion. ^{d hominem} 10:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I defer to Trent and Nx for anything technical. I do stand by my other things I have written about sysop rights here. I think making it easy is the best defense against any malicious intent. When it becomes a chess-like game worth winning on something like CP, you are inviting trouble. When it is like musical chairs with one extra chair, there is no prize. Sysop rights is all about the means and not so much the ends for someone intending malice. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 10:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you all that I don't have the first clue about how I would do any of the scary things you mention. To be fair I am not a vandal, I have never vandalised, and its only the most autocratic and mean spirited of members here who accuse me of being a troll. I don't really care about getting the powers, I asked for a laugh and deliberately provocatively just to see if it would happen. I honestly didn't think it would create a furore, though perhaps I should have known better considering the emotional and hysterical tendencies of the likes of thedictator (Geek with no life/possibly a virgin) and Jeeves (Unrepentant bigot and deviant) 134.226.1.234 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I totally disprove of name-dropping people and calling them arseholes like that, MC has a point. He is not a vandal and has made no malicious actions towards the wiki as a project or whole - a provocative little turd, yes, but that's mostly the fault of people who let themselves get provoked by it. ^{d hominem} 14:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just have a minor correction. This is not a furor. Furors would include much more profanity, some all caps posts, perhaps some lulcatz pics and a liberal application of that take a breather template. This is about as melodramatic as some collection of us deciding what to have for lunch. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Why are people at MIT wandalising us?
C:\>IPCity.exe 18.251.5.130
Country: US
Region: MA
City: Cambridge
Postal: 02139
Latitude: 42.364601
Longitude: -71.102798
Metro code: 506
Area code: 617
ISP: "Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
Organisation: "Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
Map: http://atlas.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=42.364601&longitude=-71.102798
I would have thought that the students therein would have more of a brain? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Those contributions were criticism, not vandalism. And tracing users like that is kinda creepy. RaoulDuke 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can never tell what those subversive liberals will do to us, can you, TK. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... let's not do this kind of thing. Corry 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, using a simple IP lookup on vandals is creepy. If they want to remain anonymous then all they have to do is create a sock with no email address logged. And criticism is fine, as long as it's in the right place. Why not talk on the mainpage talk page, or here, or the CP talk page? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you needed look up. - π 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it was interesting to see if someone spamming the crap out of the site was a CP editor. And look, MG is now talking to us instead of writing stupid messages on the nominations page. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What I mean IP with the first number lower that 64 are class A networks, blocks of the internet so large you could read it off this comic. - π 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, am I having a stroke or was that word salad? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 01:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets try again. The internet is a finite sized thing. They (Al Gore probably) gave a quarter of it to the people that either, designed, built, or paid for it. You can tell their bits because their addresses which look like ###.###.###.### where # is a number, all have before the first dot a number strictly less than 64. - π 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, weirdos have the IP address <64.0.0.0 Mask 255.0.0.0? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs less than <64.0.0.0 tend to be government or companies with defence links, Haliberton for example. If you see anything starting with a 48, that is Obama. - π 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just had a mental image of Obama using his super-sekrit government Blackberry to troll the shit out of CP and other right-wing blogs after a bad day. Corry 01:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is such a pleasant idea of the President vandalising CP because he is bored. Actually seeing as he has 16,777,216 IPs at his discretion he would be hard to block. He could have a special red laptop brought into to the oval office with a clean IP for his new sock. Reminds me of the time Ken blocked Oxford muttering something about Dawkins. - π 01:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can image the exchange:

Obama-Rahm! Get me Andy Schlafly on the line! He's disabled account creation again!
Rahm Emanuel- He's spped dial 2 on the red telephone, right between Putin and Brown.
Obama- Thanks. Mr Schlafly? This is the President. What? No, I'm not a Muslim! Yes, I'm black. No, I do not have secret prayer session over basketball. Look, I know you're sore over the law review election, but that was decades ago! Can you just reenable account creation? Who? Jpatt? No! TK? Fine! *hangs up* Rahm! Get me Guantanamo Bay on the line! I need to speak to Prisoner #1827 ASAP!

Lulz. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, criticizing the CP Awards on the CP Awards page is totally inappropriate. Call the FBI. And just because we can use IP tracers doesn't make it less creepy. RaoulDuke 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not creepy, its public information; people have a choice whether to register and hide behind an anoymous name to publicly broadcast their name. Running checkuser just on suspicion is creepy. The first is like someone taking off their clothes in a public place, the second is like peeking through the curtains into someone's bedroom. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sic transit gloria GeoCities

Today GeoCities is officially closed. Just sayin. [1] Corry 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My totally embarrassing (and nearly a decade old) web pages are still there. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry -- if you want to create garish web pages with whatever you think looks cool at the moment and make someone who works in web design want to gouge his eyes out, there's always myspace. MDB 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Anyone read Unseen Academicals yet? I've just ordered it on Amazon. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel it's one of his best; it's a bit like Making Money, as if he's trying too hard. On the other hand Nation is possibly the best thing he's ever done. Bob Soles 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just never got into Nation. The writing style he uses in it annoys me. ^{d hominem} 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whenever Pratchett fans get together and discuss which are the best/worse books there is always strong disagreement. My dad and I have pretty similar tastes but he thinks that Monstrous Regiment is one of the best, I cant get on with it. I really rate Jingo, he finds the portrayal of Vetnari all wrong. The only place where we all agree is that Eric is a disaster - cue cries of 'No, no, it's my favourite' Bob Soles 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not read UA yet - it's on my Christmas Saturnalia wishlist. My favourite is still Small Gods, but I like almost all of his books. The only one I really don't like is The Last Continent. It spends the whole time pointing and giggling "see how clever I was working in yet another Aussie reference?" at you. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

From the Daily Telegraph (amazingly): see rule 6 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html Silvermute 14:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, did one of you lot write this piece? RW is all over it (and Ken)! Silvermute 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See the top of the page. 15:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)^{I am eating} _& honey^chat

D'oh. Never post when over-excited at something you've just found is the message here, I suppose. Silvermute 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) This has been WIGO'd. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, apart from Rule 34, which isn't mentioned here but is common knowledge, it is pretty much all ripped from RW. ^{d hominem} 15:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at this for two days now

and I can't stop. Is there something wrong with me? Or is this totally fucking hilarious? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, look at his little hat! SJ ^Debaser 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything wrong with you but I think all these "funny" cat pictures are stupid and I have two (soon to be three) cats. So, if liking things that some random internet person thinks are stupid is "wrong" than, yeah, there is something wrong with you. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree Sheesh. Cats are capable of really stupid things without human intervention. My #1 cat jumped off my office type chair t'other day: the chair spun & the cat just moved vertically ⇓ instead of up to the desk. The followthrough: "I meant to do that" attitude was really amusing & not repeatable.

There's definitely something hypnotic about it. ^{d hominem} 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In many areas of life, I'm a reasonably sophisticated guy. I like good wine and fine food, appreciate literature and music, and can discourse on philosophy and metaphysics with my similarly erudite friends... but give me a picture of a cat with a silly caption and I'll giggle like an idiot. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MJ

My housemate is a bastard. Last night he called me into his room and showed me a video of some guy walking around the late Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch - I hadn't heard this before, but supposedly there was a ghost of MJ caught on camera. Anyway, my friend showed me the video, except this was an altered version. There was an ominous horror music kinda thing going on in the background, then as the shadow passed in the distance which was supposedly the ghost, I dead corpse comes up on the screen, and as it tells you to turn the speakers up loud it screams at you. I predicted this about 10 seconds before it happened, having seen these things beforehand, but I still felt like punching my housemate. SJ ^Debaser 15:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I got burnt by that very video, and felt like an ass because of it. Shoulda seen it coming. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive Mouse Wiggling

This makes you feel good and you're helping reach a target too. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hee! like it! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had that much fun slapping someone across the face since my first relationship. ^{d hominem} 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I slapped him to the beat of "Guns of Brixton" by the Clash. SJ ^Debaser 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm up to 400 now over about three sessions. I was thinking that this plays into their persecution complex a little, but really, its totally tame compared to the shit that was made against Blair and Bush (back in the day). ^{d hominem} 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)