Forum:Let's use Vector

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Let's use Vector

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4878 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Seriously, we totally should. The mockup even mostly works now, too. Really.

So, like, is this the point where we vote, or something? I'd throw out a list of reasons why we should do this, but just sticking to the main one seems better: We're a parody of Wikipedia and that's what they use. So let's do it already. It's better than any of the other fake vectors I've seen. 1234 ~ 16:07, 20 June 2011

Vote: Set the default Uncyclopedia skin to Vector?

Score: 36

• It's pretty. *kitty eyes*

1234 ~ 16:07, 20 June 2011

• I like.-- -> That's Poop Man Poop 16:18, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• Okay -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:43, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• Over my dead body. --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 16:57, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

  Here, here -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs KUN PLEB 10:30, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

  I believe the term you're looking for is 'hear, hear', actually.

1234 ~ 11:10, 23 June 2011

• For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. For. Lock'd And Loaded ~CUN ~ (Shoot!) 17:35, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• • For. and it seems like there is control but there is none. for or against, I can change it for me. so i don't really give a rodent's anus. • --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 18:26, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• For. and I hope I voted properly... Sammyred8 18:31, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• For. You should do something about the backwards menu, though. --Scofield & Friends 18:33, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• For. TKF pole dancing for us all. Oh, and the vector thingy. Pup 07:47 20 Jun '11
• Yes Lets. Though it will take a while to get used to. Nameable • mumble? 20:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• For. --[(Sam DiSanto)] / [(talk)] 22:43, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• For. -- 21:30, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. There's already an ad covering up a big section of the navigation bar. Things don't work yet. And I've had to hit the compatibility button ever since I was talked into changing to IE8, which has also cost me my ability to come directly to uncy. So will my compatability work with vector, or will it mess my editing screen up even more? Ads! Right there on the left! Aleister and what's with those huge tabs at the top, they look ridiculous. 22:07 20-6-'11

  There are no ads that weren't there before, things won't ever work with IE7 at this rate because IE7 doesn't follow modern rendering rules, hence why we tried to get you to update, but seeing as compatibility mode effectively is IE7... seriously, please don't use it or there wasn't much point in updating in the first place. As such, it won't work with compatibility mode precisely because of what it is. If you are having ad issues, perhaps you you have a larger problem and may want to check for viruses and whatnot. And this vote is only to set the vector as the default; the current default will still be an option, so anyone who prefers will still be able to use that if they want.

1234 ~ 02:39, 21 June 2011

• Does the Vector not work in IE? If not, we don't want to isolate the computer-illiterate sections of are userbase. I'm assuming that if someone uses IE for anything other than downloading a better browser, they probably lack the skills and knowledge to change the site skin. --Mn-z 01:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

  It works almost perfectly with IE 8+... I could put in a script to disable it completely for folks using 7- until (and if) a script is made to fix it for that, but frankly, if they're using that, they should really start expecting things to be broken nowadays, anyhow. Mind, the content technically works; the skin just looks kind of horrible. It's the tabs.

1234 ~ 06:57, 22 June 2011

• Abstain. This skin is much better than the last one. A fabulous job Lyrithya. The skin has a couple bugs as ali said...on my user page for instance the two top left elements don't work as they did before, items have been cut out of the old skin without any consensus made on it yet. I think we lose something by making it a 99% replica of the wikipedia skin and I know we are capable of making it look like a serious sight very close to the wikepedia site while still having an identity of our own. When I edit I dont feel like Im a copy of wikipedia only with fart jokes. Parody site, yes, a joke version of wikipedia with an identical form but a potato instead of globe???...for sure theres time to experiment. --ShabiDOO 00:33, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

  Er... what? If you're using IE, kindly stop it, but beyond that I really don't know what you're saying, sorry.

1234 ~ 02:39, 21 June 2011

• Its pretty. Surely we are creative enough and imaginative enough to come up with a skin that makes it clear that we are a parody site of wikipedia without completely copying their skin and still being a nice skin. Does everything have to be 100 percent the same as uncyclopedia minus a potato instead of a globe? Does a parody have to copy the elegant lines and text boxes of a serious online encyclopedia that we are atually making fun of? The skin doesnt have to look bad, im just saying when the form is just the same and only the content is different, you lose a piece of your separate identity. You dont stick out as much. But im probably the only one here who sees it that way. plplplplplplplplplp --ShabiDOO 03:04, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

  I think you may be. I mean, before Wikipedia fully changed over sometime in 2008 (someone correct me if I'm wrong), that was our thing. We were exactly like Wikipedia except for content. It made for much hilarity when people mistook Uncyc for Wikipedia. Considering the site came from the dark underbelly of Wikipedia, literally, it's only natural that we should look like them. We're all that's left from that dark underbelly now, and we have to represent it as well as/better than we did six years ago.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 03:23, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

  Mmm...Ljlego...you have the ability to nicely take everything I say and turn it around with a stronger argument, kind of like Skullthumper, only, I find your argument here pretty convincing as well. Well done chap...well done!!! --ShabiDOO 13:27, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

• For I hated Vector when I first saw it on Wikipedia. Thought it was the stupidest piece of crap ever conceived. I don't know if I've mellowed in my old age, or if I've seen what a truly shitty skin looks like (seriously, Wikia, what the fuck), but I really warmed to it. In my sojourn in not-Uncyclopedia from which I recently returned, I used Wikipedia much much more than is probably healthy, and I came to love the format. Everything looks so much more elegant and mature, to me. When I came back, I took to monobook too; it is undeniably good. But I like vector better. And that's how I singlehandedly won the Battle of the Bulge. Whatzat now, you wanna hear about Vector skin? Well, ya see, I hated Vector when I first saw it...~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:11, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• For. We're a Wikipedia parody. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 02:16, 21 June 2011
• For. I agree. DJ Mixerr 02:44, June 21, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)
• For. I like the new vector skin. A parody of Wikipedia is what we are, so why go against the grain now? By the way, I'm surprised there are people who actually still use IE, even after all the years of sheer gobshittery from Microsoft. They build a fine operating system, but their Web browser has been nothing more than a copy of Firefox in recent years. Tab browsing was the "latest thing" with IE7? Gimme a break... -- Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 10:49 June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• Lyrithya is my hero! And my homie too! Thanks for modernizing Uncyclopedia! You really made my voice heard. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 11:02, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• I vote with Aleister ♥ msRebeccaBlack 12:37, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• Why not? Veсtor is handy. — Praetorian the Glorious Strategist. 13:20, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• For. If we don't switch to Vector, I'll just keep using it anyway. --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 15:09, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
• Depressed for. I hate Vector, hate hate hate it, but Lyrithya did a great job with the thingy, and it's what Wikipedia uses, so I guess we gotta. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:08 Jun 21, 2011

  I really dislike the tabs. What's that empty stupid space for, just like on wikipedia, it's stupid there too. I won't be using it anyway. So, now that we as a group decided to adopt wikipedia looks down to the stupid tabs, don't forget people one and all, wikipedia has no ads and has no plans to put any on there either. So we, as a group, imnho, have to hold Jimbo Wales' feet to the fire (I'll grab the toes on his left foot) and make sure he understands how important it is to also keep uncy ad-free. I pick my nose on Jimbo Wales' toes. Aleister 22:49 21-6-'11

  Actually, I don't know how wise that is as a policy. We would be much more agreeable to Wikia if we had some manner of advertising. Not banner ads, and certainly not those underlined sponsored searches that pop up when you mouse over them. But some sort of aesthetically pleasing ad might allow us to get more of what we want.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 23:24, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

  Okay but really, seriously for a minute, we are forgetting something really important here. When you start talking about something like picking your nose on Jimbo Wales' toe, is that insinuating that you would pick your nose and discard the snot onto his toe, or to use his toe to pick your nose. I think both are quite improbable, but that the first is more humanly possible. Ali, clear it up for us PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! --ShabiDOO 23:25, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

  We are further wikipediafying the site, so Jimbo should join hands with us. And when you start to talk about "some" pleasing ads, that opens the door wide as it can be and unwikipediafies the site. Line in the sand kind of thing. Just using the toe. Aleister 22:30 21-6-'11

  Wikipedia may not have ads, but it still has income - just via the annual beg-a-thon instead of more traditional means. Also, very much unlike Wikipedia, we are hosted by a for-profit company, and are currently sitting on their servers taking up space and bandwidth without giving a damned thing back. Unfair much? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:30 Jun 22, 2011

  Shhhh! Don't let them know that! -- 00:32, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but at no stage has Wikia said it will never have ads. Going back to 2006 Jimbo was quoted as saying - and I paraphrase because I can't be arsed looking it up - the Wikipedia will eventually have advertising. They have managed to remain predominantly ad free due to sponsorship, but that is not a permanent thing. As for being ad free at the moment - there are ads on uncyc and despite arguments from the community - myself included - we are likely to remain advertising. There have been attempts to raise funds via other means, which includes the store, and donation raising, but I haven't seen any funds going back to Wikia from either of these, so it's not exactly been successful from that aspect. Our survival depends on being a popular site to visit, so there is revenue via advertising, which relies on us being a parody of Wikipedia. So for the sake of survival, as much as I prefer the look and feel of monobook, I have to support changing the default to match Wikipedia. (Oh, and get firefox or chrome or opera or arachne even -anything that's not ie) Pup 12:35 22 Jun '11

  Speaking of the store, it really needs more exposure. I didn't even know it existed until Lyrithya pointed it out to me. And their selection is rather lacking--they don't even have the "spatula" t-shirt featured on hate hate hat... Also it might help if store actually linked to the store and not the fake one. -- Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 02:49 June 22, 2011 (UTC)

...Or else it gets the hose again. When it's done. It does have the immeasurable advantage of showing Wikia for the foreseeable future that we really don't need their terrible reskins and annoying, nigh unusable interface redoes to stay fresh, thank you very much. Although perhaps we should just ask our little brother Wikipedia to stop being such a twit and simply peel its own skin back. --KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 00:57, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

• Against. I'd support it if it were an actual skin. However, since it is a mock-up, it will add another level of "stuff that can go wrong" on top of the other various "upgrades" that tend to cause stuff not to work. Also, unlike Wikia upgrades, only 1 person (who is an unpaid volunteer) knows how to fix the Vector skin. I'm the increased bugginess will outweigh the benefits of looking somewhat more like wikipedia. --Mn-z 01:14, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
• For. to annoy wikia by having a skin they refused to add. --Mn-z 00:46, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually you've got it backwards. A cosmetic change, which we have now, is far less likely to be buggy than an actual skin change. Right now all we're doing is changing stuff on the surface - far less likely to introduce bugs than an actual change deep inside the technical bits. And anyone who knows CSS can fix this Vector at any time, as opposed to waiting for ages for Wikia to fix it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:26 Jun 22, 2011
    • How many people know how to edit the CSS to fix the skin? And would editing it require admin access? Wikia is actually fairly good at fixing bugs and upgrades. With a mock-up skin on a real skin, I'm afraid that when a bug occurs, we will have to bother both Sannse and Lyrithya, wait on them to figure out where the issue is, and then wait on the appropriate person to fix the issue, rather than simply badgering Sannse. --Mn-z 22:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
      • Editing it requires admin access, yes. But anyone can use a personal css file and test fixes and forward them to an admin; it's a lot easier to get the site css changed than it is to get Wikia to change things, as evidenced by the fact that we had to go to this length instead of them just enabling a skin that comes with the 1.16 mediawiki update in the first place...

1234 ~ 11:10, 23 June 2011

• YES. At least keep the new logo (if shot down). It's far better. --Gamma287 03:52, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Against No, why should we change our skin just to look more like wikipedia, to be honest the vector skin is hideous, if you people want it knock yourselves out, but make it an option not by default. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs KUN PLEB 06:46, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. I fear change. Actually, I don't, I'm just not sold on this change. Even though it'll probably happen. But yeah, partly per Mnb, partly because I fear change, even though I don't. I hope that's clear. --UU - natter 08:31, Jun 22

  Oh very well, for, per Skully's response to Mnb. Although I nearly didn't change this vote on point of principle because I dislike being called a "whiney bitch" or a "dumbass stick-in-the-mud" by a poopyhead. --UU - natter 09:18, Jun 23

• Strong For. Whiney bitches will be able to select the old Monobook skin in their preferences, but don't shit on progress just because you're a dumbass stick-in-the-mud. Also, when can we execute Jack Phoenix? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:21, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
• YeeshI'm more used to it.--RodenRunner 00:15, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Yesh. 1) Wikipedia has it, we're a spoof of Wikipedia, it should be our default, while others should be available in the preferences tab for convenience. 2) Individual users being technologically backwards is irrelevant to what skin is used: They should just upgrade their own abilities. ~  Talk 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• For. Yes. (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2011
• For. golly's sake, YES! It doesn't matter whether people dislike how it looks, we're parodying WP, and we aught to look like them, so people (particularly new WP users) associate us with our parody-ee. Don't you think users new to WP will expect Vector? They've never seen Monobook before, and can't be expected to research Wikipedian skin historical records. Coming onto Uncyclopedia and seeing Monobook will be like coming onto Wikia and seeing... Wikia (it's what it's called), which doesn't even look like a wiki anything in the first place. Our n00bs deserve better than that, being able to concentrate on the content-free content and not worry about antique skins. —DCCLXXVII (complaints • resume • • • • WP • UMF • GoogHelp • AWA • WA) 05:57, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
• For. If it makes it look more like WP, then I'm for it. Please add an option to choose between skins!--Whoisthere 13:44, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

  The option will remain, don't worry.

1234 ~ 18:45, 24 June 2011

• Against. I hate the Vector skin, but if you want it on this wiki, that fine. But I don't want to make it default, because then we all have to use it, and as I said, I hate it. P.S.- what do y'all think of my new sig?

~ TheHappySpaceman • Dan the Hedgehog • The Happy Spaceman • DanTahHedgehog • YouTube • deviantART • TheHappySpaceman.com • info • discussion • contributions • WTF?! The most important tutorial ever. • UnMD • Klingon Illogicopedia • Captain Anonymous • IllogiNews: Snakes on a Plane • An Article That Redirects To Itself 18:22, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

• The default is the default, not the only. Currently a monobook is the default, but Wikia's oasis skin and another monobook are also options - should this pass, this monobook will turn into vector, remaining the default that IPs and new users see, but the other monobook and that... er... other one... will still be options for anyone logged in who knows how to edit their preferences.

1234 ~ 18:45, 24 June 2011

• For. What's the big deal about voting against if we have the choice to switch to the current skin we don't like the new one? This can only be good a thing since we have that choice. Mattsnow 19:19, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
• For. – Definitely, it's a better skin overall. —mc10 (t/c) 04:14, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
• Coulda swore I voted already. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:18, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
• Monobook is so ugly!!! Vector rules.--Bubbles Green 01:04, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
• For. Look at the pretty gradients!-- Talk - Contributions 01:09, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
• For. But I wanna use Raster one. Cranezyer 08:04, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
• For. One of this site's important functions is to parody Wikipedia. Also, Uncyclopedia's official religion is Discordianism, so we ought not to fear change. Also, there's a rumour going around the internet that Uncyclopedia is the Worst. Maybe if we change skins to a nice tiger camouflage, we can hide until the rumour blows over. YouFang 17:47, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Though glitchy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.49.140.141 (talk • contribs)
• FUCK YEAH. GreenFishyWishy 18:29, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
• For. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 06:42 Jun 28 2011
• For. Kakun  nukaK 06:44, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
• For. Long live Vector! Shimazu | Chat with me! | What I have done | My Homeland | A sad conflict | AA AAAAAAAA AAAA 08:31, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oh... wait...

Here's a screenshot of me on the talkpage for The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy:

Now, you'll notice there's a red oval around the article tab. Why is there a red oval around the article tab? Because the article tab isn't working. I'll be on a talkpage, and I'll try to go to the main article by clicking the article tab, but I can't. Fix it. -- 21:53, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it on that very page in both Chrome (which I see you were using) and FF4. Maybe you're not doing it right? Did you try clicking on it?~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 01:55, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked on it, multiple times. But that just activated the editing page (I have it so if you click on an article twice it'll send you to the editing page). So it worked for you, huh? Well maybe it's just my computer (it's new and there are still some bugs). I'll try rebooting. -- 02:01, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

That's nifty. It's strange that the double-click would work but the single wouldn't. Because I imagine the script uses the link to generate the edit URL.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:04, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

No, you see, it's not just the article tab you have to click, you can click it anywhere on the article. -- 02:09, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Screen shot of the two topleft elements that are screwy. The potato is now infront of the text of not featured, making the notfeatured part meaningless, and the first tab is all screwy. Also the rating system was removed without that conversation being resolved. --ShabiDOO 23:42, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Somebody wants the rating system back? Pup 12:47 22 Jun '11

Use {{logo}} and you won't have cross-skin positioning issues.

1234 ~ 02:52, 22 June 2011

What I'm wondering is... why were you looking at that particular talkpage? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:38, 22 June 2011

I hit random page, and that's what I got. -- 19:18, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'd love the rating stars back. Everytime I go to a new page, or read someone's VFH article, I automatically go to score it and there's nothing there but blue nothing space. That's what I'm saying, with all this newness going on just to look and act and smell like wikipedia, which I guess is our lot in life, a no-ad along the sides, tops, or within the main article should be a minimum policy regarding ads on the site. People act like it's outside the range of policy or something. I'd rate this page a 3. Aleister 19:33 22-6-'11

I guess Aleister puts it in a way I am too weird to be able to express. In any case, he is right, if we have to lose creative liberty by copying the skin in its entirety, losing little features only a few people liked but never hurt anyone, then at the very least we SHOULD copy wikipedias skin and have no flashing cheesy ugly adds anywhere either. A fair trade. I am such a weirdo. --ShabiDOO 21:42, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I. This isn't the place to discuss what happened to the rating stars; there's a separate forum for that.

II. Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia are not hosted in the same manner. Wikipedia has fundraisers and is a non-profit organization. Uncyclopedia has zero income and is hosted by a for-profit company we are basically borrowing the resources of. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:11 Jun 22, 2011

Skullthumper...sorry, the two are very related and its not just about the side bar but the skin as a whole as well. And Im sorry as well, but I find it really absurd to say on one hand, we must copy the skin of wikipedia exactly because we are a parody of that website and must look just like it (even though some users compromise the kind of features or look of the site they would prefer to have), but, no, we will throw in some adds because of argument x, argument y or argument z (even though now the skin is not a copy of wikipedia, infact, now it looks trashy with cheesy adds and seems totally different with them). Which one is it? Copy the skin or not? Or am I missing something bigger? --ShabiDOO 22:27, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

The rating was removed from the interface regardless of skin; the sidebar has very little to do with the skin, unless you mean the oasis top-menus, which are completely separate, but something tells me that's not what you mean at all. Anyway, the other two skins use the same interface elements, and this one is indeed a copy. That is the entire point. Pieces of it may differ, and regions of content may differ, but they always do.

1234 ~ 11:15, 23 June 2011

Try this Lotje 11:56, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Should TKF release a pole dancing video?

Score: 5

1. For.. It has been too long since one of our own released any adult-oriented material other than me. Pup 10:58 22 Jun '11
2. I have two sets of photos. One with him naked and one with him really naked...like nakedness gone awful. Which do we release? --ShabiDOO 13:23, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
3. For. Let's all go to the blue bayou and watch some frogs pole dance. Eh? -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 21:48, 22 June 2011
4. Slightly Against. Let's eat burgers.
5. I don't understand this joke. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:16, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

   This is no joke and you know it!--ShabiDOO 23:58, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

6. Strong For I do. (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011
7. Wheee!....CRASH....-- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 06:18, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
8. I'm gay for TKF! |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 07:52, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
9. Hell yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.49.140.141 (talk • contribs)

To hell with vector

I hate change. I hate it when Facebook changes it's looks, and Im going to feel quite uncomfortable over this change. And I don't see why we should change. I like the way we are right now.---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 02:50, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I will still be on this site regardless of change of skin. Sorry to dissappoint.

FOR. No more arguing! Now it is +25 votes. (against=-1, For=+1) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.60.69 (talk • contribs)

PEOPLE!

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

msRebeccaBlack 11:26, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

some serious thing

I noticed that the social networking part thingy keeps shifting from the left of the edit tab, to all the way to the right in protected pages. Is this supposed to happen? I'm using chrome, and when I try to use IE, the social networking thing doesn't even appear ): msRebeccaBlack

Yeah, I have no idea how to do an insertBefore that works in IE. The jQuery one doesn't even work.

1234 ~ 17:29, 29 June 2011