HRWiki:Main Page Talk Archive 8

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Main Page Talk

1 (1-20)
2 (21-40)
3 (41-60)
4 (61-80)
5 (81-100)
6 (101-120)
7 (121-140)
8 (141-160)
9 (161-180)
10 (181-200)
11 (201-220)
12 (221-240)
13 (241-260)
14 (261-280)
15 (281-300)
16 (301-320)
17 (321-340)
18 (341-360)
19 (361-380)
20 (381-400)
21 (401-420)
22 (421-440)
23 (441-460)
24 (461-480)

25 (481-500)
26 (501-520)
27 (521-540)
28 (541-560)
29 (561-580)
30 (581-600)
31 (601-620)
32 (621-640)
33 (641-660)
34 (661-680)
35 (681-700)
36 (701-720)
37 (721-740)
38 (741-760)
39 (761-780)
40 (781-800)
41 (801-820)
42 (821-840)
43 (841-860)
44 (861-880)
45 (881-900)
46 (901-920)
47 (921-940)
48 (941-960)


[edit] Anonymous editing

Hey, everyone. We're finally back with this edit by Tom. Also congratulations to who made the first annonymous edit. — Lapper (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, it's over? o_o I blinked and I missed it. --DorianGray Totally awesome! Um one thing: the user login/account creation page only has the following fields available for new users: retype password and the image code. There is no field for putting in one's email addy, what happened to that? Also, the text below still mentions the email addy option (in case you were planning on eliminating that feature for future funny users. (I had to alliterate. I love lengthy alliteration. --Stux 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)))
We still plan to reenable that. The code isn't ready for it yet, but it is ready for anonymous editing and new-user creation, so we went ahead and implemented what we have so far. — It's dot com 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Fanstuff's still locked up tight, though? --DorianGray
No, Fanstuff is back open. — It's dot com 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Then shouldn't you take down, or at least alter, the MediaWiki Site Notice at the top... You took it off here... --DorianGray
Do a hard refresh and see if that fixes it. — It's dot com 06:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It still won't come off the main page, although it is off all the others. (However, it's not like I visit the Fanstuff frequently... Maybe once every 6 weeks, unless something major goes on. Don't even have an account.) --DorianGray
Makes sense... sweet! Good to have this running! Thanks! --Stux 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
SWEET LADY FREEDOM, LET'S MAKE OUT!!!! Well I'm glad the wiki's finally getting back to it's old self. Patrolling edits, battling trolls, greeting new users, I missed all of that... Thunderbird 06:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the above user is the best ever. 06:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
There have been a few trolls... Check the history of my user page for one of 'em. --DorianGray
Well thanks annony, that means alot to me. Thunderbird 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I also think Dot Com should get you a danish. 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
o_O ... By the way, TBird anonny, notice the capitalization of the short form of my name: it's Dot com 07:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh heh, my bad I mean... annony's bad. ;) Thunderbird 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey! Neat! (but still, this makes us more suseptible to troll attacks.)-- Benol, aka Coach B 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I say: Bring it on! ):D Elcool (talk)(contribs) 13:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
THis is great. Anonnys can finally be back. To bad it will take a while to get the word out. And about the trolls, I don't mind. I am itching for a troll to fight! ! Rogue Leader / (my talk) 14:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and now we have a super cool word-in-a-picture security device. That's just what we need. — Lapper (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yay! We had our first troll (to my knowledge).

[edit] New-user creation

There's a glitch in the Captcha system that is not letting anonymous users create accounts. We are aware of the problem and are working to correct it. — It's dot com 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I think I fixed it. — It's dot com 09:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed. I've been waiting for new user registration to come back so I could finally create an account here. Long Time Wiki Reader, First Time Wiki Poster. Or somesuch. Forgive me if I'm not very good at this. I've never actually used a Wiki... (Well, I've used a simplistic one elsewhere, but... I dunno if the interface is the same). I don't even know how to properly give a "signature" or whatever. Ah well. I'll learn. =P -YK 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oo! An L.T.W.R., F.T.W.P.! Seriously, the learning's half the fun. I'm going to head over to your talk page to explain the question about signatures. —AbdiViklas 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Videlectrix stubs

As many know, most of the Videlectrix games are currently not available for play. However, we have articles on their respective subjects, only with the most minimal of information. Then each article has been tagged as a {{stub}}. After sitting in Category:Stubs for a considerable amount of time, it has become clear that there may never be any more information available on the subjects. Even if there will be, there isn't right now. I nominate that the stub tags from each of the articles be removed for the reason that they are complete at the moment. The following is a short conversation on the subject:

  • <Lapper> BazookaJoe`, what do you think?
  • <Lapper> We say the Videlectrix articles are uncompletable.
  • <Lapper> There's no info left to add.
  • <Lapper> But they stay in the stub category like they should be completed
  • <Elcool> some stubs that should be destubbed:
  • <Elcool> Cheat Commandos Playsets
  • <BazookaJoe`> I think they became stub articles on the pretext that there might someday be more info on them
  • <Elcool> Atari Strong Bad
  • <BazookaJoe`> but, yeah. if there's nothing else to add, it shouldn't be a stub
  • <Lapper> BazookaJoe`: Yet, there isn't right now, so why leave them as stubs?
  • <BazookaJoe`> i don't see a reason

I've decided to be bold and remove the stub tags. If anyone objects, they should do so. — Lapper (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, there are quite a few other stubs that are technically complete, some of which have been de-tagged by E. L. CoolLapper (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if there's no more information to put on the article then they don't need to be stubs. It's been discussed before, I just don't remember where (but it had to do with small articles too, and wikipedia not being paper). --Stux 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well; everything should be relative, and like you said, they ARE complete. - 15:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow=Update?

Is anybody else having H* come up really slow? It's kinda on and off. Sometimes it's fine, and others it's not. Could this be 'cause of the long wanted update? Or is it just me? -AtionSong 22:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't come up at all for me. It's definitely not just you. I think you're on to something, AtionSong. --DorianGray
It is all at normal speed for me. They might be updating, I hope they are updating, but don't get your hopes up. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It was really slow before and their was no update. Maybe it's different now...or not.--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Boy. I wish I had job where I could skip out without telling anybody for a month.

Mabye they gave up. Mabye they are tired of Homestar. Mabye they threw a WILD New Years Eve Party. But I just want Homestar back!-- Benol, aka Coach B 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Run "Matt Chapman Atlanta GA" or "Melissa Palmer Atlanta GA" through Google. Their phone numbers are prominently displayed, feel free to call them and ask where the update is. XD
Yeah, that'd be great.
ME: Hello? Is this Matt Chapman?
MATT: Yes. Who is this?
ME: Oh, you don't know me. I'm a fan and I found out your phone number through an online search. So, I was wondering why there hasn't been a...
ME: Hello? {pause} Hello?
Yeah, that's work out great. -AtionSong 17:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You really called him?-- Benol, aka Coach B 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
No. I should probably indent it so people know it goes with my other comment. I'm saying that it's unlikely that Matt or Missy would talk to a fan that just found their number. Also "XD", I think that that's a pretty big invasion on their privacy and it is very rude. -AtionSong 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
They weren't saying XD is their name, XD is a smiley, that looks like a laughing guy-- Benol, aka Coach B 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
and Matt's # is (XXX) XXX-XXXX, and Missy's is (XXX) XXX-XXXX.-- Benol, aka Coach B 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but even if the numbers are available through google I think we should still respect their privacy and not post people's phone numbers in this wiki. --Stux 17:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a thought- what if the update is the final Stinkoman 20X6 level, but it was so massivce they had to take it down, or there was a problem or something. -AtionSong 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty unlikely that a SM 20X6 level would make the entire site unaccesable. --VolatileChemical 20:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't get to it yesterday, but it's fine today. Maybe they took it down so no one could find a loophole to get to Level 10 before it's released (how about "Not the 100th Email!!!"). teeeffoh! 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It could be like insanely huge, like in 3-D or something. I dunno. It's just that it's been 3 months without an update, so maybe they were saving the last level for an important occasion. -AtionSong 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys are kidding yourselves. "TBC have gone 24 days without an update. They don't have anything predicably planned, and they haven't released anything even close to being a message as to what's holding them up. They must be planning something ultra-huge that's gonna be so cool with Stinkoman and Trogdor and Fqhgwgahds! It's gonna be the kwelist thing EVAH!" The way I see it, nothing huge is coming at all. It's just something that no one's willing to talk about, or have any medium of saying. Something personal that's holding them up. They have nothing big planned, they'd tell someone then. This, my strange little internet friends, is something hidden, something secret, something that could see the end of Homestar Runner as we know it. --VolatileChemical 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
We all know that. The same thing is running through everyone's head, we just don't want to admit it. We could be getting our hopes up, yes, but do we really want to talk about the end of Homestar Runner? No. We're just not ready to face the concept yet. As a garage band once sang, "Homestar Runner, I don't know what I'd do without you". --Kiwi 24:45, 1 January 2006
Let's just stop speculating and see what happens. TBC deserve a break just like the rest of us, for whatever reasons they may have. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know about you, but my boss lets me take month-long breaks all the time. These guys are JUST like me.
Okay, this is the kind of comment that really cheeses me off. TBC do this site mainly for their own amusement and to please their fans. Aside from selling products in their store, they don't charge you to use the site - it's free for everyone to enjoy. Therefore, they are not obligated to update the site on any schedule but their own. If they choose to take a month's vacation and not tell anyone, that's perfectly within their right - it's their site, and regardless of how you and I feel about it, they can do whatever they want with it. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Feels good to be out again {pant pant} .The thing that so weird is that if they knew that they were going to be gone for 4 weeks, they would have made a cartoon, and just had their dad or somebody put it up. This leads me to believe one of three things:

a) There was some unexpected reason that they're not updating the site, which is probably personal, and we should respect their privacy and stop harrassing them.

b) There isn't going to be a holiday update this year, so we should stop waiting for it and relax.

c) There is some huge update they are trying to put up, and we just need to wait for it.

Any way, I think we should just stop contemplating and rehashing the same ideas over and over again and just accept what is and wait for the next update to the site. -AtionSong 02:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is one. --VolChem 03:49, 2006
Given their normal tendency to give small updates when they skip a week (let alone 3), my gut tells me it's a), and not pleasant. If so, my heartfelt condolences to the Chapman Bros and their family. --GregHosting 10:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There might be an update, there might not. The thing I think is odd is that nobody's even stopped in to at least switch "New Strong Bad Email" to "Strong Bad Email" or something like that. Who knows what's going on. I agree with AtionSong, the only thing we can do is wait. --SariaMew 2 January 2006

Greg's gut tells him it's a, and so does mine. But my gut tells me that they WILL be back. Maybe not this week, maybe not this month, but they WILL be back. Eventually. And Strong Bad will make a big joke about the whole thing. I can see Gavin on the Lappy now... --Kiwiperson 19:16, 2 January 2006

What Kiefersunk said is completely pointless. Yea, they have a right not to update their site for a month, and we have just as much of a right to complain about it. Does anyone remember the old days when there was an SBemail AND at least one other update EVERY week? I would have thought that getting so popular that they don't have to work anymore would have made them spend more time on the site, not less. Maybe if the fratboys in my classes weren't all buying the same Trogdor shirts, the BC would eventually realize that they actually need to keep putting up content to keep making money. In the words of Strong Sad, "oh man... used to be cool..." Of course that's all a moot point anyway, since I don't think that they would willingly go this long without an update, even considering the lax updating in the recent past. I mean, this is after all their livelihood. That they would work on an update for a month without having a moment to put up any notice is inconceivable. Even if something personal had hapenned, they could have at least gotten someone else to put up a quick note or even shut the site down. Whatever hapenned must have been huge enough to cause the site to be completely ABANDONED. And that means it's most likely also huge enough to signal the end of Homestar Runner. Also, I'm sure some crazed fans have already called them, and the lack of any posts to the effect here means that they failed to get a response. Though if the site's not updated soon, I expect to see wild rumors all over the internet regardless.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I stand by what I said. Very few things irritate me more than people who complain about free sites that don't update when they want them to.
Many people who run free web comics, story sites, etc., that you don't pay for in order to use, will take breaks occasionally (sometimes even long ones, with no explanation), and just come back when they're ready. And several of the ones I've kept track of over the years have shut down permanently or gone subscription-only after they took such a break and came back to find tons of hate-mail in their inboxes simply for not having updated. I would really not like to see TBC do the same thing with Homestar Runner. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
All of what you said is true, but the comment about "the rest of us" not having the ability to take unannounced, month long vacations remains correct. To me it seemed like trolling, as roughly the same comment showed up earlier on in the discussion, anonymous in that case also, but even if it wasn't just to get a rise out of people, it's still no cause to get upset about it.--Jmcc 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna hafta agree with Greg here. I don't think they would just abandon the site like this. I think something has gone very wrong in their personal lives. Bu then again, there's no way for me to know, and it can be something totally different. -Parlod
And I'm just trying to make the points that (a) there's really no use in speculating, as we have no idea what's going on, and (b) TBC do not work for you, for me, or for anyone except themselves. I don't agree that the "unannounced, month-long vacation" comment is a fair or valid argument, as they do NOT work under the same rules as most of us (as far as we know) - if you took a month-long unannounced vacation from your job, you'd be fired. But if you took a month-long unannounced hiatus from updating your website, yeah, you might annoy some of your fans, maybe even lose a few, but it's not like your whole life hangs in the balance, y'know? :P — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, although conversation on a Talk page doesn't really do any damage, and although I was eager enough to say something on this topic just last week, this really is the sort of thing that would be better off at the forum. The wiki is for discussion of what's on, not what isn't. (But—disregarding my own advice and throwing my 2 cents in: What everybody seems to be getting at is the paradox of being self-employed. If you're your own boss you can come in to work whenever you dang well please; the flip side is that every vacation is an unpaid one.) —AbdiViklas 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a question of whether TBC are entitled to vacation. It was a question of phrasing on your part. Their situation is not "just like the rest of us." That's all that user was pointing out, more sarcastically than needed, perhaps. There was no need to defend TBC, as there was no offense to them.--Jmcc 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Meh, it touched a nerve - I've seen this exact same discussion related to half a dozen other sites, so I was getting tired of seeing people complain about the lack of updates in general. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah—I get similarly annoyed by interaction about extensions for FireFox—plugins provided for free for a program provided for free. And you see people cussing out the (volunteer) authors about not updating, as if they're complaining of service at a five-star hotel. —AbdiViklas 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
In response to AbdiViklas, I disagree. This talk page is the perfect place for this discussion. You see, I used to be on the forum, but it took up too much of my time, and I could never do anything else because there was always a new discussion to spam on. So I forbade myself from ever going on it again. If this convo is moved to the forum, where I couldn't bring myself to read or add to it, ever, I'd be ruined. I'm a Homestar Runner fan. Ergo, I have no life. If this argument about whether or not we should complain about the lack of update is moved off the one third of the wiki I can bring myself to go on, I'll lose my livelihood, and I'd wither and die like a ficus watered with Yoo-Hoo. --VolatileChemical 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Still, even if something did happen to one of the Chapmans, they could still put up new weeklys, or something. It's just...wierd. But not necessarily bad. What if it's just something about them not being able ot get access to the site or something like that? Problems with Flash? HTML? It doesn't need to be a bad thing (well, really bad). -AtionSong 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that this will, in some way, change Homestar Runner as we know it forever. --VolatileChemical 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I remember those days, Mike. Those were good days... {sniffs} good days. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No one thinks it's the end of the world. We're just annoyed about this lengthy unexpected lack of update. Can you blame us? It's been a month since the last update (February). Hey...since the last update, now is 28 days later. Maybe some kind of virus has wiped out the greater Atlanta area? --VolatileChemical 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Virus=Very No. Heimstern Läufer 08:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a new email update on the main page of the Wiki? -Parlod
Troll, as best I can figure. --Jay (Talk) 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Great, just as anonymous editing and account creation are reactivated, people start pulling that crap again... --Spanky The Dolphin 16:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
To VolatileChemical: Don't get me wrong - I'm concerned about their lack of updates too, not to mention how the site is INCREDIBLY slow. But I think it's a bit premature to be jumping to conclusions about what this means for the future of, hence my "end of the world" comment above. :P — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you'll probably see this as just an anonymous comment improperly added, but I think it's important to remember that although the main page hasn't been changed in a month, the store's sale was extended 28.12.05, which I believe in a clear signal that TBC are alive and well.

So we hope. :) It's possible, however, that Yahoo had orders from TBC to extend any sales if they hadn't heard otherwise, or something. Not sure how Yahoo Stores works. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if the repeat usage of "The good times are over!" as the Quote of the Week a while back could've been a sign... I wanted to post something then, but I wasn't a registered user at the time. I hope this isn't the end... I just got here, too... *sigh* ...Hopefully, we're just reading too much into this. -YK 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To KieferSk...KieferSku...uh, to Kiefe...I can't say it. It's just to weird. Anyway, to that guy who said "To VolatileChemical:": When I said it would change HSR forever, it was kind of a joke, because if there was ever another update at all on the site, the site would be changed forever, in that it had this new cartoon. 'Cos that would change it, that new cartoon, and it would stay that way forever...if the site stayed up forever and they left the cartoon on forever too...for forevermore. --VolatileChemical 04:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Save it, Volatile. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. *rolls eyes* — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish Strong Bad would answer the email I sent him. --NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc  18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is another new long- including the discussion before, this seems like it could be the longest Main Page talk discussion ever (both length and time). -AtionSong 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You think I won't complain about free stuff? Buddy, you don't know me!

I was just it possible that there was a fire that destroyed the Bros Chaps' computers and stuff? Or was that question already brought up? --CCrunner 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What we need is somebody in Georgia to just read the paper or the obituaries or something, and put this crazy discussion to rest. I'm sure they'll update on Monday. Maybe. If they don't, people are really gonna get worried, because that'll be the end of the extended sale. Thunderbird 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone considered the possibility that TBC are enjoying watching us squirm? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone besides KieferSkunk and some other guys that Homestarrunner is not TBC's life? They could've won the lottery, or had something personal happen, something like that which doesn't involve us! And... to answer your question Kiefer, perhaps. Like they did with Not the 100th email. — talk Bubsty edits 03:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I checked a bunch of Atlanta obituaries a week or so ago. No Chapmans, no Palmers, no Sterritts, or at least ones that seemed reasonable. —Zelinda 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I aggree with KieferSkunk. If I had the sense of TBC, plus the fact that they know about the wiki, I would enjoy watching us go crazy. As a result, I think we should just stop talking about it. I am officially no longer posting in this thread. -AtionSong 14:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I'm with KieferSkunk on this one. IMO, Seeing how Christmas was just here, I'd say that probably explains something. They're probably still on vacation or something. Once again, they are a free site, so they aren't obligated to keep us all entertained, although they're nice enough to do it, and they should be able to take a break without being bashed to death about it. And I'd say it's a little too early to call it the end of That's a bit of an exaggeration. Just be patient. If in six months there is still no update, I'd just give up on it and go find another site to visit. At least we can still access the old content. Agentjs03 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"Oh you guys should stop complaining TBC run their own show and site and they're their own bosses and they're on vacation or taking a break it's not up to us to be upset they run the site they can do what they want" SHUT UP!! We get it! They want to take a break so they do it and we shouldn't complain! We get it! Can this conversation go two posts without someone saying it's up to them when they update? Geese! So annoying! And now someone's going to say us "end-of-Homestar-Runner" guys are just as annoying. Maybe we are, but at least we don't...uh...well, actually, I can't really think of the end to that sentence. But still, we're just kind of irratible that no one can come up with an acceptable cause for the delay. All we have is, "They decide when they take a break," and "One of them died." And don't get me started on this new "They're doing this to torment us," theory. I'm really tired and can't think straight, so I'm going to say whatever crazy thoughts wander into my mind: wouldn't it be cool if in, like, two thousand years, the future ends up all weird and skewed and it's like a huge-scale game of Telephone? And this single argument right here turns into, like, major religions? And they'd always be at war with each other, infidels suicide bombing the Holy Land of a virtual reality interface...and these old theologians would be pooring over old hard drives and floppy disks, looking for ancient hidden cyber-scriptures as to how the argument first got started and how it got out of hand...there'd be the Breakists, and the Deathists, and then the weird seperatist movement would be, like, the Annoyists...hey, I'd be like a prophet or something! That'd be awesome. --VolatileChemical 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to say this one more time: We do NOT know what the actual cause of their lack of updates is, so it's not doing anyone ANY good to speculate on it. They could be taking a break, they could have gotten tired of H*R, their house could have burned down, they could have died... the point is, we don't know, and all anyone is doing here (myself included) is SPECULATING, which doesn't get us anywhere. And if TBC are reading this whole conversation, they could be asking themselves why the heck they should keep updating their site for such ungrateful fans. Do you know? No?? Then perhaps we should just end the speculation and let things happen as they will, eh? :P — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In two thousand years, Deathists will say I was captured by evil Breakist armies and tortured until I confessed the truth about my visions, or something like that, but for now, I agree with KeifyGuy. There's not really much left to say in this conversation, so...let's end it. Okay? Okay. *prepares self for all the posts to this discussion that will no doubt follow despite their pointlessness and total lack of not being anything but repetition of previous posts* --VolatileChemical 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people shouldn't be so critical of individuals concerned about the slow update. Personally, I think humans are creatures of habbit who feel disoriented when something isn't normal. Perhaps there should be a support group for Homestar runner withdrawl. I know I would join! --CCrunner 15:40, 7 January (UTC)

Perhaps TBC were somehow impacted by the Georgia mine collapse?

One, sign your posts. And two, that was West Virginia. And Skunk, I don't believe you think we're ungrateful! I love the site and I think it's OK if they want to take a break (they've certainly deserved it) but we're getting concerned. Being concerned is NOT being ungrateful. --Kiwi 20:24, 7 January
I'm treading a thin line with that comment, I know. But my point is that over the years, I've seen a lot of conversations just like this whole thread where, say, a web-comic artist or a fiction writer with a free site takes a hiatus, and the person's fans start complaining about it in the forums or via email, going "Where the heck are you? You should update your site! Why aren't you updating? Is something wrong?" etc. Several of these artists/authors have said, publicly, that they felt harassed by their fanbase, and that they felt their fans were demanding a lot from them. That's where I get the ungrateful part from - that we run the risk of seeming ungrateful for the site by demanding that TBC conform to our schedule. True, they've set a precedent for being prompt and regular with their updates, but they don't have to stay that way, since they run the site free of charge. If we were paying directly for the site's use, it would be a different story.
Anyway, I'm not trying to tell everyone here that they're being ungrateful - I'm just trying to point out how we run the risk of badgering these guys to death over their absence, to the point where they potentially could feel like not coming back. That's all. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: As a specific example: About 5 years ago, I was part of the video game emulation community, and I remember someone writing an emulator called Final Burn, which faithfully emulated a variety of Capcom games. It was a very good emulator, but the guy was getting burned out on it, so he took a break. Meanwhile, a large part of the "new" community (the younger kids who were more concerned about being able to play free games, rather than preserving the technology in software) were badgering him to add X, Y and Z games to the emulator so they could play them, fix bugs in another game, etc., and he got really fed up with it. He pointed out that it was HIS project, he wasn't charging anyone for it or making any money off of it, and that he would do what he wanted with the project on his own schedule. This resulted in several major flame wars that ultimately caused him to quit the scene entirely, with some harsh words for his audience. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, that's enough. This thread turned into an off-topic chat long ago. This talk page is to discuss the wiki, not speculate on what TBC are doing, or chastise those who speculate. If you have anything else to say, take it to the forum (but everything has pretty much already been said there, too). Do not post anything else in this thread. Thank you.It's dot com 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but one more thing:
THEY'RE BACK! YAY! — talk Bubsty edits 04:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long

Homestar's description on the main page is a bit too long, I think. It makes the main page... unnaturally tall. - Joshua 03:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i kinda see what you mean. Personally, all I can really say is... Oh well. The intro was nevertheless a good read and Homestar's a tall guy anyway :). --Stux 04:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
A tall guy? Strong Bad's shown to be about four feet tall in SBIIJC, and his and Homestar's heights are just about the same in PP. So...three feet? Not very tall. --VolatileChemical 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
He's tall in comparison to most of the characters. --DorianGray
Also, Homestar and Strong Bad stand right next to each other in The System is Down and Homestar is way taller. -

But that's not the point. Homestar is the main character on the site, and so there's a lot about him. -

Main character? Pfff! I wiki-Google'd Strong Bad and got about 58,000 results. Then I wiki-Google'd Homestar Runnerand got about 58,100 results. Subtracting the 100+ results that would refer to the Flash series itself, it would seem that Strong Bad is much a more main character than Homestar. --VolatileChemical 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhh... that Google search means nothing in who's the main character. It's, therefore Homestar Runner is the official main character, even if Strong Bad has the largest feature. - Joshua 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Aye. Strong Bad is just stealing the show, basically. Doesn't mean he is THE main character. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Strong Bad's next month. Thunderbird 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, next month. I couldn't care less. Plus, I only said Strong Bad was the main character so I could have an excuse to scoff. --VolatileChemical 07:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purge the WHAT?

Okay, this may sound stupid, but what does that blue thing at the top of this page that says "Purge the Cache" actually do? I clicked on it a couple of times, but nothing happened. Can someone please tell me? Has Matt? (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The cache is a stored version of the page that is created so the Main Page does not need to regenerate itself from code every time a user requests it. The problem is sometimes the cache is out of date with changes to the page, especially when underlying templates are changed (try changing your sig template sometime, it takes a few minutes for the changes to appear everywhere on the wiki). Purge the cache removes the cached version of the page and regenerates the page from code. At least, this is what I assume it is for ;) Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for telling me! Has Matt? (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Slocum Picture

Taken from Talk:Paul Slocum

I found a couple of pictures of Paul and would like some help. If possible, could one of the sysops email the site owner.
Here are the Images:

Or it you like you could email Paul himself about this picture, but it's not very good.
--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Is [mailto] spambot-proof? If not (and I'd suspect not, since it's the @ symbol they're looking for), then unless Paul used it unprotected first, let's not do so. That's the number one easiest way to sign on for a dumptruckload of spam. I was about to convert the @ and dot to unicode, which is a pretty effective prevention in html, but it seems to not work with wikicode. —AbdiViklas 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! After some research, turns out Hexadecimal works! If this revision doesn't work for anybody, or if it's actually unnecessary, please pipe up. (If it works and is necessary—i.e. wiki pages can be read by spambots—can we consider making this a standard?) —AbdiViklas 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we have to ask about using one of those pictures? Don't we already use most pictures without asking permission? I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody with extensive legal knowledge before we email asking permission for something we may not have to. In any case, I've gotta insist using a cropped number 6 picture if we use any.
EDIT: Seems like you do need permission. I've already emailed asking for it. Thunderbird 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Permission given. Thunderbird 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop Nominations

Does anyone know when the next sysop nominations are going to be? Are there even going to be anymore? DBK! 23:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was just about to ask that question! (I wanna nominate Bubsty)-- Benol, aka Coach B 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha the only reason I asked this was because I wanted to nominate Bubsty. DBK! 00:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing around here is we only nominate sysops when we have a great need for them. We have quite enough of them right now, so new nominations probably won't be any time soon. --DorianGray
DorianGray is right. There will be new sysops where there is a need for new sysops. -- Tom 00:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Although some of them do seem a bit un-active. I was wondering about that - can you de-sysop a user? AgentSeethroo, FortyTwo, Stu, (although he recently "came back," even for a short while), and maybe a few others haven't been on for a while. Oh and thanks DBK and Benol, although I don't think I'd be a very good sysop. talk Bubsty edits 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's been said before: why de-sysop someone? We keep them as such to be formal, and also just in case they do come back. Anyways, enough are active to make it not really matter if a few older ones are taking a little break or have moved on to other things. --DorianGray
Thanks. And I hope some of them do come back. — talk Bubsty edits 01:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Then there's me, someone who has (mostly) been busy lately and hasn't had much to do (with the IPs temporarily universally blocked and the main site not doing much), but still lurks a few minutes a day even if I don't do anything. How can you tell if someone's gone into lurker mode like me? --Jay (Talk) 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Then... you have to just guess, probably. Although I doubt Stu, AgentSeethroo, and FortyTwo spend two to three minutes on this wiki a day, and don't do a single edit. — talk Bubsty edits 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well technically Tom and the other Admins have records of the last time anyone signs in, but that's for their eyes only. And yeah, I gotta agree with Jay. I like the freedom to be able to take a break if I get busy, without worrying my sysop privilages are gonna be taken away because I'm not active enough. Thunderbird 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I do the lurker-mode thing too, when term becomes too busy. Thunderbird, do you know if the records keep track of automatic sign-in? Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh I would think so, or else my records would show that I've only been on about 5 times since I signed up... Thunderbird 14:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Add me to the list of people who lurk when they get too busy. :) —BazookaJoe 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean about a week or two or anything. I meant something like If you haven't edited in 6 months without any notice explaining why, we de-sysop you. But, if you come back, we give you back your sysop powers. I doubt you guys do the lurker-mode for 6 months in a row. — talk Bubsty edits 04:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We already do that. Anyone who isn't here for six months, we don't let them use their sysop powers while they're gone, but when they come back, we let them use them again. — It's dot com 04:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it matters if there are sysops who aren't around any more? As long as we have enough sysops, inactive ones don't matter. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I matters because if we take a look at the syssop list, we see that there are 18 of them. removing the two bots, we get 16. Out of them, the ones that are active are 9.5 (Stu just came back). Let's say, for the record that there are 10, ok? That leaves us with 6, yes 6, non active sysops. We sit here, talking about the future of their role in the site, and do we get a reply? Even those who consider themselfs as "lurkers" (Which is ok) came and defended themselfs. How about we contact them through email and a massage in their talk page, and see if they mand the change. If no reply after two weeks, they will be de-sysopied. How about that? The most non-active are:
  • AgentSeethroo - Last edit: May 17, 2005
  • FortyTwo - Last edit: October 21, 2005 (Single edit since February 16, 2005)
  • Furrykef - Last edit: June 25, 2005
Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it matters that they're listed even if they're inactive. They're folks who earned sysop duties, and if they ever come back, we'd be glad to have them keep In the meantime, it does no harm for people to read their names on the sysop list and not see them around. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
AgentSeethroo (Interrupter Jones as well) are no doubt in contact with Tom and Joey all the time; they perform admin duties on the forum. Furrykef is an admin on WP now, I believe. It's not like he's completely vanished, and the site developers know where he went and that's okay. Forty Two hasn't completely vanished either. He got married this summer. I was going to say how it's not a big deal to have inactive admins on the list, but then Heimstern posted, so suffice it to say that I agree. We are a small enough wiki that we can allow and keep track of inactive admins without any problem at all. —BazookaJoe 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Forty-Two is a she. At least, that's what her userpage says. Heimstern Läufer 05:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I thought so! I had that tugging in the back of my mind but I didn't go investigate to confirm. —BazookaJoe 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
To Dot com: Your comment struck me as particularly funny. :) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, to Dot com: Oh really? In that case, let all my comments be erased. — talk Bubsty edits 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I just thought I should point out that in the case of furreykef, he admitted that he wouldn't be around here much at all in the future, at the time of his nomination. Yet he got it anyways, because he is an exceptional user. And whenever he is/was around, he only makes solid edits. So if we're willing to make people sysops who admit they won't be around much, obviously we'll leave alone those that try to be around, but for personal reasons may have to go on hiatus. Thunderbird 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

Is it just me, or has new user resigtration been shut down again? I went to log on and the CAPTCHA image wasn't there. -Marth 99 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; I just went and checked and didn't see it either. I hope we haven't shut it down in response a half-hearted effort like Kwan3216! —AbdiViklas 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I just checked it and there was a captcha there. —Zelinda 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw it thre too. Has Matt? (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I remember it missing the other moment. But now, obviously, it's back. — Lapper (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And now it's back for me too. That's very odd, and somewhat disconcerting. —AbdiViklas 22:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Strange. I swear it wasn't there a minute ago. Oh well. DISCUSSION OVER!!!! -Marth 99 22:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy smokes, can't I do maintenance for five minutes without everyone going haywire? — It's dot com 22:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We prefer to call it "The 'ol lightening nerve". Perceptive and high-strung are better descriptions. — Lapper (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's better then not noticing a single thing. Especially when an NSMC or something like that comes around. — talk Bubsty edits 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forum Help

I have a forum account, Dantheburgerking. Well its not working. It said to contact an administrator, and I don't really know how to. So if all else fails, go to the Main Page talk page. DBK! 03:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You should post about the issue in the forum helpdesk. -- Tom 04:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I brought it on over there, thanks. DBK! 04:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World. Ending. HRWiki. Down.

Why was HRWiki down yesterday? Everything was going fine until I clicked on the Main Page button in the sidebar, and this weird error message came up. Then it wouldn't let me get on any pages. Did this happen to anyone else besides me? Has Matt? (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

...Hey, that sounds familiar. Although it didn't last long for me, as I found a way into it through an external link I used somewhere (it was in a discussion about one known as "Clan RHRN". But, yeah, I do recall getting "a weird error message" from trying to get to the main page. Obviously it was just a temporary glitch.
On a side note, are we, the HRWiki users, too prone to panic? (Look up a few conversations.) --DorianGray
AAAA!!! We are?!! Are we?!!! (Hehe. Sorry, couldn't help it. —AbdiViklas 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday? And you're just now bringing it up? Please. I thought we were jumpier than that. Seriously, I know we're all on edge not only from the fact that IPs can edit again but also because there hasn't been an official update in a month, but I think a little prudence is called for here on when to start a new thread. Occasionally we do maintenance on the site (see above). Occasionally we experiment with new features that will make the site better. And, occasionally, when I am testing something, I will accidentally comment out something important, like a close parenthesis at the end of a line, and not fix it for second or two. In situations like these, tell yourself that everything is fine and that nothing is ruined. If the site is back up in under five minutes and the problem doesn't repeat, you can probably just chalk it up to "one of those things" and not worry. — It's dot com 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It ahppened to me, too. I think closed the page and brought it up again, and it worked. SaltyTalk! 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR

couldnt find any mention of this on the wiki, so anyway, NPR did a story on which you can listen to here:

An interview with the chapmans, and clips from the site - the only new content besides the interview is strong bad saying "you're listeing to All Things Considered, from NPR News."

Was it the All_Things_Considered_Interview_-_8_May_2005?
yep that's it. I searched on NPR, not all things considered. dumb me.

[edit] My browser just messed up, or...

The Main Page (of the actual HR) is taking a long time to update, and when I get it, there's no recent update, first time here, Quote, Sketchbook, etc., or other main page buttons! Everything still works, albeit slowly...'s probably just your computer. What are you running on, anyways? -Walking Armless

The sites running pretty slowly for everybody. Those elements should come up eventually. They are all separate .swf files that need to be loaded, which is why they take longer than the actual page. -AtionSong 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas break or what?

Are the Brothers Chaps taking an extended Christmas break or something? They haven't updated in a long time.--Trendy Totebag 22:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See the big discussion above. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yea it's been over a year. (or a month.)
Oh well. We still miss 'em. -Walking Armless

seriously. this is the longest I've ever gone without updates, I'm going to a splode. 03:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we're gonna get another d-ween in july... Homsad 03:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah well. It's been five years, they deserve some kind of break. Ed smilde/talk
We should just wait and see. Maybe something has came up and made them unable to update. Still, this is the longest wait in a while without an update. Happy 21:45, 6 January 2006 (EST)
And now they've updated. Sweet lady freedom! Let's make out! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank God, I was getting worried. -Walking Armless

[edit] Huh?

Is it just me, or are the menus on the main pages gome? Y'know, the choice of which menu you want to go to? -Grabboarm700

It was almost just you. They were gone when the page loaded, but they appeared within 3 seconds. --DorianGray
No, something is very wrong for me... When I click "rando" It's undefined. TotalSpaceshipGirl3 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you need to wait for HR:rando.xml to finish loading before you click. -- Tom 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Though maybe they don't have the file there at the moment:
           => `rando.xml'
Connecting to||:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Object Not Found
12:11:06 ERROR 404: Object Not Found.
Looks like we'll just have to wait it out. -- Tom 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page updates not updating?

The Main Page update for today says that the copyright dates on the main pages were updated to 2006, but I don't see it. I'm still seeing the "last updated 12-05-05" and copyright date set for '05 as well, even after clearing my cache. Anyone else also seeing this? I imagine it's because TBC haven't finished updating the site yet, but this seems odd. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to make sure you are clearing your cache of the old HR:homepages.swf file. -- Tom 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, same thing happened to me even though I was pressing Ctrl+Shift+R which, in SeaMonkey, is a hard refresh that clears the cache. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that your browser refresh probably isn't clearing HR:homepages.swf, since it's included in HR:main1.swf and not the actual HR:main1.html page you are refreshing. -- Tom 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

I'm trying to get the history of Free Country, USA in chronological order, and could use some help! :) --NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc  19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Store

I just noticed, and I don't know if this is the right place to put it, but the store flashmation at the bottom of the screen is now winter version. Cakeman

Yep. I sees it too. -Grabboarm700

Added to changes, and image uploaded. We don't have an image for the summer theme though, which would be a nice touch for archive's sake. At worst we could wait for next summer, but I'm an impaitiant sort... Thunderbird 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Found. See your other request. -- Tom 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1234 articles

I found this interesting. — It's dot com 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I did too. I saw it a while ago, before highschool even. I think. If I recall, the 1,234th article at that time was The Cheat's Glowsticks. --DorianGray

[edit] Longest Period without updating?

Is one month? Count X

I think there were longer ones, well, at least longer Email gaps. SaltyTalk! 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Longer email gaps... MAYBE. But I'd need to check in the past year or two if it was. From emails 10 - 100, it was pretty steady I think. As for longest stretch between site updates, Nobody knows about 2000/2001. But as far back as our archives go, I think it's the longest, yeah. For more information, check this series of articles (use the handy navigation template on the right side of the screen). It goes back to 2002 prett reliably, but 2001/2000 are sketchy. Thunderbird 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools