MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2

Man, we all had so much hope for New Caprica.

So what now?

This topic was moved from Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal#So what now?

I brought this general line of questioning up over at the Allspark too, but that was really only because TFWiki.net was down at the time. Basically, in the wake of the Bookworm disaster, I'd like to know three things:

1. How did this happen? All I know is that Bookworm updated the MediaWiki software, which caused... something... to happen to our data. The wiki was, what? Deleted? Corrupted? I don't know. But apparently this required a reversion to a backup, and the only available one was from June 2008. Why did that one even exist? Why not September? And, honestly, the "routine backups" made after September had all failed, with no one ever noticing? How did that happen?
2. Has the backup process been fixed? This is pretty much the most important question of the moment. Every bit of our herculean recovery effort could vanish again if the June backup is still the only one on the server.
3. Where are we going from here? Walky has said that he's looking for a new host, and he has asked for advice. I haven't seen much advice appear (maybe people have been communicating with him in private?), but if anyone has any suggestions, please air them. I wouldn't even know where to start, so I'm of little help.

- Jackpot 18:03, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Bookworm has explained to me what he thinks happened to the backups, but I couldn't begin to regurgitate that information. This stuff is not English for me. (Some would say English is not English for me.) It involves complicated server moves and DNS stuff, I think, and the bottom line is none of the backups were confirmed to have resulted in working backups; they were merely scheduled to be made, automatic-like, and resulted in, from what I understand, data being thrown into the ether, never sticking to anything. WHOOPS --ItsWalky 01:23, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

All right, so does he have it working NOW? - Jackpot 02:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Scout, according to a post on the Allspark, has been doing database downloads every afternoon. I don't know about Bookworm. If I asked him, he'd probably say yes, but he would have said yes before, too! --ItsWalky 09:46, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Is there any way we can be sure we're getting ANY service out of Bookworm?--Apcog 10:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I really have no concept of what to look for in a host. While I've managed to find decent hosting for my own site in the past, it's a static, relatively low-traffic site, nothing like here. A quick search reveals that there are plenty of hosts offering unlimited space and bandwidth for about $5/month, which sure seems like something we could afford. But I have no intuitive sense of how to identify a quality host for our kind of needs. Like, are these $5 guys the first level of low-grade vendors who have Google-statted their way up the search results, and you have to dig deeper to find the more heavy-duty kind of host we'd need? Are the recommended hosts on that page just there 'cause they paid for it? Or is $5 just the going rate for quality hosting these days? How do we distinguish a reseller from an actual host? How much software and setup support do we need?

I mean, I guess I'd expect a serious host not to have cheap tarts on their front page, but anybody can make a serious, grey-toned, business-like web page... even guys who provide crappy service. -- Repowers 18:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

They may say they offer unlimited space or bandwidth, but I'm betting that there's a clause in the T&C which limits it to "for some meanings of unlimited". The big Doctor Who fiction archive site I help run got bumped from the cheaper account it was on to a more expensive one because it was using too many "resources" (the software it runs on is not the most efficient), though it was using less than the maximum bandwidth/disk space. --abates 19:26, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm wary of with these cheap places. The front-line search result hosts really don't seem like they're marketing to processor-intensive clients like ourselves. -- Repowers 20:06, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

What is our price limit, anyway? I mean, the account which the aforemented fanfiction site is on is extremely reliable, you get access to everything up to and including rebooting the server if you want. However drawback is that it costs $40 a month. Now it could be we could share costs by having several sites hosted on the same server (I'd have to check with the web host about that), but I don't know what our price range is. --abates 21:34, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I would be very interested in hearing our budgetary constraints as well. The last time this was asked, Walky said that Bookworm was handling it and that the dude would let him know if what we were doing was costing more than the Project Wonderful ads were pulling in. At the time that was cool as school but in retrospect it seems... really skeevy. It also possibly says that Bookworm already has our ad revenue, and can effectively hold us hostage. I know that sounds paranoid, but I don't know what to think right now and would love some reassurance at the least.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:24, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Bookworm absolutely cannot hold our ad revenue hostage. WE have our ad revenue. It is gathering in our Project Wonderful account, where it will remain until we can point it to a paypal account at some point in the future. Bookworm may have fucked over the wiki this past week, but he's not a jerky guy. He just loves webcomics, and basically hosts BLC at low-cost because it allows his favorite things to continue. Hosting the TF Wiki was an extension of that, and he did it because I asked him. Let's not demonify the guy any more than we have to. He's not going to screw us over, and I really doubt he has any bad intentions in mind. --ItsWalky 00:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Consider me reassured, then. Likely me just taking the earlier statement too far. Understandably, the concept of how the wiki is financed and how much it is costing us has been pretty black box up to now.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:36, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

My input:

I used ePerfect as my first webhost. I found them to be reliable and easy to administer, but we would have to negotiate our own package with them, as their standard plans are obviously way too small. (I do know a fellow who did such a negotiation for his website, so I know it was possible at least in the past, however I am not privy to what his costs ended up being.) I also have no idea how their tech support is, as I never had to talk with them for any reason.

My current webhost is Dreamhost. For $10/month you get gobs of space, bandwidth, and options (and full control over your space), and they also have private virtual server options. They also will host one domain name for free if you have webspace with them. I find their tech support people have been quick on the response the few times I've needed to talk to them.

However, they have had some hardware goofs in the past, and I've never had personal experience with how they'd handle a no doubt high-bandwidth, high-CPU-usage site like this one. They are, however, very quick and open with any and all issues they have: Dreamhost Status Blog

So, there you have it, the only two webhosts I'm personally familiar with, and I admit I can't 100% recommend either, but they might be worth looking into. (And I shamelessly request that if you do end up with Dreamhost, you use my referrer code while signing up. :3 ) --Jeysie 18:59, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

One of #wiigii!'s resident tech dudes recommends Slicehost. He immediately followed this up with a string of caveats -- it won't be perfect, we'd need someone to install Wikimedia, restoring from a backup would basically mean rolling back one day, etc etc -- but it sounds far better equipped to handle our needs than Bookworm, and it looks like exactly the kind of heavy-duty host which, as I said up above, I don't know how to search for. Some of it, I mean... no host is perfect, and we have to accept some compromise to keep things within our budget -- but reliable uptime and actual working backups would be a fantastic step up from our current situation. -- Repowers 00:17, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I am that tech dude. Here's the deal, from what has been gathered and occasionally specified. The platform on which this wiki runs seems to need a half-gig of RAM, and under 10 gigs of diskspace, but it does apparently need dual CPUs at a decent clock speed. Fundamentally, it could be hosted on a mid-range desktop based on those specs, but the hardware, and even the bandwidth, is cheap. You either need a sysadmin to maintain everything, which is not a full-time job until something breaks, or you need a managed hosting option that knows how to run MediaWiki properly. The former gives you complete control over everything, though you may not get cPanel support and the like unless you build it yourself. The latter is what you had when Wikia didn't suck, which I'm sure had a lot less headaches in terms of the guts of the system, although it was obviously NOT a good solution based on how they presented your content. Personally, I think you're more likely to find a pool of competent techies within the fandom to handle the nuts and bolts on a volunteer basis, though you would be handing over ALL the keys to the castle to that person. -- McFly 22:23, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I've dealt with this crap so far up until now. I have no qualms with continuing to do so. --Suki Brits 10:53, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I thought I'd weigh in with HostForWeb, who I've hosted my personal site with since January '04. Their tech support is pretty good, and even moved my site to a different server for me when the one it was on started having persistent problems running out of disk space. The only thing I can flaw them on is that they don't announce downtime in advance, so a few times I've found the site down, emailed them, and they've told me that the server was being rebooted or something.

The larger site which I help run which is hosted with them is A Teaspoon and an Open Mind. It's been hosted there since September '06. Last month, it got an average 3,755 pageviews per day, and from user reports, it has very little in the way of downtime, but, as I mention, it's running on their $40-a-month VPS plan (you get a two-month discount if you pay for a year at a time). We started on one of the shared plans, but the site was using too many resources (The software we're using is not particularly efficient...) and we ended up being bumped to the VPS option. --abates 07:04, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Craptacular server performance

Change we can believe in.

I don't know what the hell is going on, but shortly after the crash, I saw a message that we were moving servers to allegedly better handle our traffic volume. However, my experience with this site since is that it's actually performing worse, far worse than pre-crash. At least back then, I could predict when the server would go down (apparently for this mysterious backing up our host apparently did that didn't work anyway) at around 5-7PM my time. But now, the server stops working (sometimes for quite a while) whenever it jolly well wants to. My connection to every other site is perfectly fine, so it's clearly not a problem on my end. What is going on?

I dare say we may have to consider the (fictional) Adequate Host. Can't be worse ;) --FFN 07:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

We haven't changed servers yet — we're still on the original one. --abates 08:19, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't say we moved hosts. I meant this message on the 19th of March:

"Due to high loads, the TFWiki is in the process of being moved to another server. Please be patient. Bookworm Computing"

What, so we didn't move to another server? --FFN 12:42, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't say anything about hosts either. :) You can see the story of what happened on Leaving2. An attempt was apparently made to switch the site to a new server but... failed. --abates 16:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Ahh, I see. I assumed we HAD moved. Sorry mate. --FFN 17:12, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Page load issues

This topic was moved from Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal#Page_load_issues

This might be just me, but has anyone else been experiencing trouble loading pages lately? I'd ignore it completely as the price of having an old laptop, but I have this problem here more frequently than any other site. Is anyone else having such a problem? -- SFH 17:42, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Bookworm allegedly attempted to move us to a new server on March 18 knocking the site offline for several hours and apparently mucking around with the site's DNS entries. (Why you'd need to fuck with the TFwiki DNS entries to swap servers in-house...?)

1. They are lying.The move failed. (I neither know nor particularly care why.) We're still on the same server. The BLC sites we share space with still go down at the same time.
2. We have no idea what when in when they claimed attempted to "switch TFWiki to another server." I dunno, I think this is still accurate... specially since it seems to correlate witht he next item.
3. That server has been having epileptic fits ever since whatever they did with brownouts, blackouts, timeouts and lockouts occurring off-and-on at all hours of the day. This doesn't affect just us; it also affect all the webcomic guys hosted on our server-- thus the punchline of the latest Shortpacked!
4. The site is still going completely offline for a half-hour every night for the "backup" which apparently doesn't work.
5. David's being either preoccupied or secretive (or possibly just sullen given the strip) which leaves me in the dark on whether anything new has happened with Bookworm the last 5 days-- but I suspect the answer is "no."
6. A new home for the site is being discussed. The current (very tentative) plan-under-consideration involves a "Safeguard" two-server setup where one server hosts the wiki and a second synced server acts as backup, with server-bogging tasks like weekly database backups and downloads handled on the second server so that the "live" wiki never skips a beat. Note: It's not my plan, I know nothing of the technical issues involved, don't ask me questions about it, and nothing has been decided yet, it's just what people-who-are-not-me are looking at.
7. Scout just fixed some post-caching processing code the wiki's been running since we moved in (a early hack we never got around to setting right) that should slightly improve TFWiki's responsiveness. But this isn't related to the downtime. That's on the Houston end of the problem.

So yes- you're not imagining it. The site's experiencing intermittent downtime. It seems ot be getting worse, we don't know what's causing it, and Bookworm has been about as helpful, useful and informative as the jawbone of an ass. That's right-- biblically useless. -Derik 18:59, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Derik is aware that the jawbone which everyone thought was useless was eventually given a purpose by Sampson. Shut up Walky, allow Derik his bombastitude.

SoM would like to point out to Derik that the biblical guy was "Samson", not "Sampson" :p

Derik would like to call you a bad word now. Samaritan.

Derik, I just want to thank you for sharing all of that. As I said over on that Allspark thread, the view from the trenches can be exceedingly foggy. I'm sure that's in part due to you and Walky and Suki not actually knowing what's going on EITHER, or being too swamped to communicate when you DO... but still, it's really good to get updates whenever possible. I suggested maybe a setting up a Twitter feed or something. Anything, really, so that the rank-and-file can get a better understanding of how the wiki is actually being run. - Jackpot 19:11, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not terribly "in the loop" either. I don't run in the same social circles as these guys, so anything I know comes from poking the guys making these decisions for information (or the lack thereof) in-between fiddling with Deceptitran. (First sweep 93% complete. It shoulda been days ago-- but all the brownouts tend to stop the program) -Derik 22:15, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

See, that just goes to show how little information is actually lying around for folks to pick up. If you're not one of the people "in charge," who is? Walky, I gather, set our current arrangement up, though in an entirely non-technical sense. Suki is the uppermost person I know of in terms of technical decision-making, though apparently she's had a deuce of a time getting any real access to the server from Bookworm. Is there anybody else I'm missing? - Jackpot 23:59, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

What? Bookworm is NOT lying about moving us to another server. He told me immediately after FAILING to get this wiki to WORK on a different server, that he'd put it BACK. We've known that since. I guess we didn't tell YOU that, but... Jesus Christ, dude. --ItsWalky 19:15, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Or Scout apparently, since she was equally in the dark when we discussed the server-change shutdown on the 19th.

(Furthermore, the current Shortpacked! punchline has nothing to do with the current situation. I thought it'd be funny if the strip itself "failed" after Ethan was proved wrong by the guy he makes fun of all of the time. Nothing more, nothing less. Man, most of BLC isn't even on the same damn server as us. It's just me and the BLC forums. There hasn't been a damn peep from the rest of BLC.) --ItsWalky 19:18, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Well bravo on the unintended synchronicity! The server's epileptic episodes tied-in with your punchline hilariously well! You should totally thank Bookworm for our downtime, because it's enhanced the realism of the Sortpacked! experience. -Derik 22:15, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Complaints

"Put it in numbers." -Derik 03:39, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Our Google rank, which slid noticeably lower after the spam-laden import, is mostly recovered, but we're below where we were. This is frustrating because we had been making actual gains, and the Google ranking is much easier to slide down than to climb up.

Lately we've been spending muchmroe time recovering old content than developing new stuff, and that hurts how we look to Search Engines. >:( -Derik 03:50, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Adviews, the "lifeblood" of our site that (theoretically) pays for hosting, etc... drop 55% after the crash. Recovering. OHai-- notice how today has a giant dip in it? Apparently when you're down for half the day, no one can see your ads!

Pageviews-per-visit drop s from ~17 to ~12. 4 pages might not seem like a big difference... but that's a 20% drop. -Derik 04:40, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Change we can believe in.

--FFN 17:14, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Just a note: Google trends for Transformers Wiki. I think that's quite a good indicator of what we might expect when ROTF comes out. --abates 21:33, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

That chart terrifies me. -Derik 20:41, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

This is what I get typing "tf wiki". --Lonegamer78 02:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Update?

Okay, it's been over a month since anyone has said anything about actually moving to a new host (as opposed to just documenting all the reasons to leave). Has there been any action behind the scenes on this? Who's involved in the decision-making process? I imagine Walky is the one who has to ultimately make it happen, and I also imagine Suki would be involved somehow. If either of you guys (or anybody else in the know that I'm unaware of) could give us a rundown of our status, host-wise, that would be awesome. Thank you! - Jackpot 22:00, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

I think they hoped everybody would have forgotten about this.... until the next crash, anyway. --FFN 18:13, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

What Jackpot said. It's been pretty quiet lately on that front. -- Repowers 09:48, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

And again. -- Repowers 10:47, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, we really need to get off this server, and last I knew we had at least a few options, so... ??? I'm in the same boat as FFN - I'm trying to get people to visit here since we have the better info, but running into, "Well, the Wikia site is actually up, and I don't feel like waiting..." (Heck, I have to admit even I sneak over to Wikia sometimes when I need a bit of quickie info during a roleplaying session and we're down.... again... :/ ) Plus it's annoying as hell while trying to edit pages.

I'm not jumping ship personally no matter what, but we do really need to get the heck out of Dodge. --Jeysie 14:58, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Walky recently said on the Allspark that they'd already priced out a server, and that Suki has just finished up finals so we should be able to move soonish. Presumably after such a move and once stability has been verified, we should be able to do the MediaWiki upgrade.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:33, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

I asked Scout two(?) days ago, and she said we will be on our new server come BotCon. That's in two weeks so...

(Thankfully, since we have access to the site database, there will be much less drama involved in the move this time... it should just work without any extensive cleanup or patching on our part.

*crosses fingers* -Derik 18:49, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

I have much more faith in you guys, given that you've shown at least a smidgen of knowledge of good DBA practices.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:51, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Bookworm told me that whenever we're ready, he has a 4 gig database dump he can hand us. (I think it was 4 gigs.) --ItsWalky 19:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Oh, and I saw Scout and McFly talk back and forth about their testing the new server for speed and stability over IRC today. Progress is happening! --ItsWalky 19:24, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

A database dump? So should we stop editing? - Starfield 19:49, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

If I thought we should stop editing, I would have said so. And in a large font! Hold your horses, cowboy. --ItsWalky 19:58, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Past experience has told me that if we actually reach the point where we need to stop editing, they'll just lock the wiki down. Wiki software is such that if you start from an older backup, it's just a matter of adding the newer revisions in. Definitely not an all-or-nothing affair.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:51, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Site-up issues

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a better place to address this but ... it seems like the site has been down an AWFULLY lot recently. Weren't we plowing the advertising revenue back into hosting? I have a hard time imagining that being down for an effective several hours / day is the best we can do. --Jimsorenson 16:54, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I've moved this over here, so it can be put in the greater context of the discussion.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:03, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm worried about this too. I think it's rather unacceptable for a website to randomly shut down without warning for hours on end, every day. It's embarrassing when people report to me that the wiki is down, again. What do I tell them? --FFN 18:12, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

According to our project wonderful stats, we've been getting higher levels of traffic since "Decepticon Air", which could well be the cause. If we're still here when Revenge of the Fallen starts, I predict CERTAIN DOOOOOOOM! --abates 18:18, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Oh, if we've not moved to a stable and reliable host when RotF hits, the wiki can stick its' head between its' knees and kiss its' bum goodbye, because everyone and their mother's brother will go to Wikia. I don't think we want that, yes? - SanityOrMadness 19:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I've worked very hard on advertising tfwiki.net and harassing people into visiting this site instead of Wikia, to theoretically support "fellow fans" and because hey, we have better quality information. I really don't want to see it go down during the biggest TF event of this year (and the next few years). --FFN 13:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Botcon is in 3 weeks. It causes a major traffic upspike.

When are we moving to Spherity and Toulin? -Derik 15:22, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm assuming that Suki Brits is the one to answer these questions, however she hasn't edited the Wiki since March 28th, her last post on the AllSpark was on March 27th, and she hasn't answered either of the emails I've sent her recently. Has anyone heard from her at all in the last month? --abates 22:32, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

One word. Finals. --M Sipher 23:07, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Ahhhhhhh! --abates 23:36, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Sluggish performance

Is everybody experiencing the sluggish performance I've been getting from this site in the past several hours? I've noticed and have been informed of by others that the site loading very, very slowly, such that tables and templates are not loading properly, such as the section heading images ("Featured Article", "Categories" ect) on the front page. --FFN 10:48, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Huh. I thought that was just a problem on my end. --Professor Icepick 11:05, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Same here. It's been doing it on my end since about 9 pm (eastern time) last night for me. I cleaned my H-drive, C-drive, defragged, etc. thinking it might speed up from the dial-up speed that it was running with. Needless to say, that didn't happen. At least I know now that it's the site problem.--AWT88 11:33, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Ditto on my side and I know it's not because of the earthquake I just got hit by on Sunday night. --Lonegamer78 11:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Seems all right now, though last night when I was trying to edit, it was taking half a minute to load pages. --abates 16:00, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

I hope the promise of a move before BotCon is true, because we've been having more "TFWiki.net has a problem!" messages and general "it ain't loading" issues on regular days. BotCon and then Revenge of the Fallen would pretty much kill this site on the current server it's on. --FFN 02:50, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Never mind that - the TFA finale's this weekend, and it's fallen over for much of the last two Saturdays. If we get to edit anything Endgame II-related before Sunday, we'll be lucky. - SanityOrMadness 10:13, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Many Happy Returns

Heeeeey, this is pretty good. --Rosicrucian^Talk 17:15, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

It's speedier than the old server, but there's still some wonkiness. For instance, every time I tried editing just this section I got a blank page, but editing the whole page seems to have worked. Also, I keep getting logged out. --Jeysie 18:00, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I can't even log in. What's going on? -- SFH (cannot log in) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm thinking there may be some wonkiness related to cookies made before, or even during the transition. I did get some "session data lost" messages, but after a log out and a log back in, that seems to be resolved.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:06, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

So what exactly do I have to do to be able to log in? -- SFH (desperately trying to log in) 18:19, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

You could try clearing your cache and deleting your cookies and see if that helps. Other than that, I'm not sure what to suggest. --Jeysie 18:23, 26 May 2009 (EDT)--Jeysie 18:23, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

What are you getting when you try to log in? A blank page? An error message? --abates 18:32, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage". Does that help? -- SFH (unable to log in) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Welp, I'm on firefox, and I'm logged in, and I'm only editing this section and it's displaying right, so... I'm happy! /:) - Chris McFeely 19:08, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, I tried Firefox, and it's working, but still not on Internet explorer. -- SFH 19:19, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Tried here with IE6. No problems logging in, but when I attempted to log out, I got a "Cannot find server or DNS Error" error. The second logout attempt worked, but then when I went to log in again, I got the same error.

Deleting the tfwiki cookie fixed the problem and I was able to log in. In fact now I'm not having any problem at all logging in and out on IE6. The sidebar on the login pages appears messed up in IE though (tis cutting off in the middle of the navigation menu). --abates 19:39, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

What is this "Internet Explorer" you speak of? Is it a 3rd party browser? -Derik 19:37, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm getting a lot of "The requested URL could not be retrieved" messages, and the occasional blank page or "loss of session data", myself. - Magnus Maximus 19:47, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I occasionally get the message: Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in. - Starfield 20:13, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

So do I. And I did delete my tfwiki cookie, but I still get internet explorer cannot display the webpage. This is getting rediculous. -- SFH 20:18, 26 May 2009 (EDT)