Uncyclopedia talk:Writer of the Month

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pointless Wiki-lawyering)
(Pointless Wiki-lawyering)
Line 61: Line 61:
 
:Deleted...probably.
 
:Deleted...probably.
 
:Sporks...depends, how much of a spork was it? One section sporked out of 12 or something like that wouldn't effect it.{{User:HELPME/sig}} 19:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 
:Sporks...depends, how much of a spork was it? One section sporked out of 12 or something like that wouldn't effect it.{{User:HELPME/sig}} 19:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  +
::No offense, HELPME, but you're answering a question on Uncyclopedia policy that was asked by a user who's been here for two years and has made thousands and thousands of edits. You've made less than 1500 and have been here 2 1/2 months. {{User:Why do I need to provide this?/sig}} 19:53, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:53, March 26, 2010

I Scream, Baby

I thought i could take part in the voting. Once my candiate wins he will definitely forgive me for not being a registered member. It's like the old Chinese slogan, "Registration is nothing, voting is everything." Or one could quote the modern Malaysian saying, "To scream is to serve, and to cream is to protect." But, hey, what is it with this gallons and gallons of ice-cream? I would have voted if there was more ice-cream, say a full thimble? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.74.244.12 (talk • contribs)

It's been exactly one year since this comment was posted. I figured I'd finally get around to telling you all who said it.
This is actually pretty funny. This guy's funnier than most IPs.  :-) — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Word. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Upping

I'm changing the eligibility requirements. Anyone who has any qualms, bring em up here. I don't think its anything too dramatic though. --THINKER 06:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should change it to at least "2 featured articles." The candidates this month have well over 2 features.--Æ 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it matters how many articles you've written or how many featured articles. You could write 20 really interesting articles in a month or you could only write 3 articles that month, each of which gets featured.   Le Cejak <-> (Dec 23 / 14:35)
I personally don't think it should be about how many featured articles people have, I'd much rather reward people who are constantly augmenting the work of others. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Number of features is not the best way to judge in my view. Some people like to make improvements to old articles which may never be featured. I don't think we want to encourage people to only work on new stuff. There is enough old stuff around which needs work. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 14:39, Dec 23
You're right about the features--Æ 14:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Window to the past... (no editing)

http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia:Writer_of_the_Month&diff=next&oldid=22291 - Like only STM is still around :O --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent Icons-flag-au Noobaward Wotm Unbooks mousepad GUN 04:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote for me

Vote for me. Oh wait, I don't have an account here. Well, vote for me anyways.

This Guy (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Score: 1

Is somebody going to make a nomination this month?

Or will have have to uglify the page with a joke nomination to get somebody's attention :) --Mnbvcxz 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your demands have been met, of course further nominations and votes are always welcome... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Usually, we wait until like the 15th before we start caring about WotM/UotM/PotM again. Sir SysRq (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff from voting page

Comment - and don't feel offended by this vot MadMax, you're gonna win anyway. But voting the same way as Puppy is always a good idea. PoliszSir Ptok-BentonicznyPisz tutaj KUN 13:21, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Um...why??~ Sir Paizuri / Talk / Contribs / Crap / 06:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Because I get angry, and hit the keys harder. Honestly I'm happy for Mad Max to win this, and I'm objecting purely on the grounds that it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of this award. User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sigheil Wednesday, 06:49, Mar 24 2010 UTC
I was referring to Ptok's comment about how voting the same as you is always a good idea. ~ Sir Paizuri / Talk / Contribs / Crap / 07:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I just vote the way Ptok votes, and in that way I don't have to check Puppy's votes anymore before I vote myself. This saves me a few minutes on most days, which I readily use to shout at strangers. Aleister in Chains 2:27 25 3 mmx
What can I say - the amount of abject terror respect and admiration I engender is flattering. User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sigheil Thursday, 03:02, Mar 25 2010 UTC
I disagree, Pup. This s writer of the month, but not necessarily article writer of the month. I think a person's writing talent and skill is more important than where they write it. This shouldn't become a commonplace nomination, but I think Max really is a special case.Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 03:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a valid point, but given what Mordillo's comments were here I have to disagree with you based on that. Because if my comments are incorrect, that makes Mordillo's comments incorrect as well. User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sigheil Thursday, 03:33, Mar 25 2010 UTC
With respect Puppy, that's bullshit. This award is not solely to recognise the writing of featured articles, and it doesn't say anywhere that it is. Mordillo's comment didn't state that this award was solely to reward features either, merely that this was the award for writing, while UotM is for other work. Max's forte is helping out. He has immeasurably improved hundreds of articles, making them better to read, and cumulatively, that has a huge effect on this little wiki. The spirit of this award is to recognise people whose writing has made a significant contribution to Uncyc, and Max has more than done that. --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:08, Mar 25
Mordillo's comment is the basis for my against vote. To quote ...candidates should get this award (UotM) "because they have many featured articles"... we have other prizes to compliment that. How am I supposed to read that without concluding this is an award for featured articles, or at the very least writing consistently good articles? If Max is the writer that everyone is claiming him to be, then there should be a list of at least a dozen articles where he has made a significant contribution that has dramatically improved the article. But to date no-one has highlighted a single example of where this has happened, except by saying that is has happened in "hundreds of cases". I can look through the list of previous winners and pick out articles of merit for each of them, I cannot do that for Max. And if we start to devalue this award, along with any other Uncyc award (except nomination of the month) we start to devalue the work that all of these other writers have done before. I have the greatest respect for Max, but not as a WotM contender. (Sorry if this reads as ranty, but I just want to make it clear that I'm not "joke" voting.) User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sigheil Thursday, 10:32, Mar 25 2010 UTC
"We have other prizes to compliment that" =/= "WotM is only for writing lots of features". In the same way, if someone was nominated for UotM on the grounds that they had produced several featured images, you might tell them that there is another award for that (PotM), but PotM is not just for creating featured images (I won it over a year before I got a pic featured, for example). The reason I don't list a ton of Max's improvements is that he does so much every day, sifting through his many contribs to find a few examples that will satisfy you would take fucking hours, and I don't have time for that. (Max doesn't list all the stuff he's done on his userpage, he just gets on and does it). You are free to vote whichever way you see fit, that is your right. But when you use one single comment made some time ago simply to point out that UotM is not a writing award, and misinterpret it to imply that WotM is solely for writing truckloads of features, I have to respond. Because that is a load of crap. Stand by your vote, by all means, but don't tell me this award is just about features based on that one observation of Mordillo's. --UU - natter UU Manhole 10:44, Mar 25
Hey, are you going to write academic papers on my comments next? Also, POTR, What UU is saying is my thought exactly - and you more or less took my comment out of context. The comment was originally meant for people stop nominating editor for UTOM based on their writing and number of featured articles - because the WOTM compliments that. It certainly does not mean that WOTM is based on the number of features one has - but how he contributes, with writing, to Uncyclopedia. ~Jewriken.GIF 11:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
So would you be happy to say that UotM should not be based solely on a person's writing but on their overall contribution to Uncyclopedia? I'm just trying to get this clear. (BTW, I'm removing my vote as I never intended to kick up a dramafest on this, and it's immaterial anyway.) User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sigheil Thursday, 12:02, Mar 25 2010 UTC
UOTM? UOTM has nothing to do with writing, it has to do with QVFD, Ban Patrol, Categorizing, VFD and generally helping people around the place. WOTM is about writing and adding content to articles, I don't really understand why is so difficult to understand. ~Jewriken.GIF 15:10, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Really? I got UotM for my general state of being me. Well deserved, too. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:47, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Symbol against vote Against. Modus being Modus, because I like to fuck stuff up.Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 19:33, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Pointless Wiki-lawyering

The requirements state that the winning must "Have written at least five "full" articles." I would take that to mean being the primary author (or one of a few primary authors) 5 articles, and in contradistinction to improving but not primarily writing N articles. Of course, I have no idea how many articles MadMax has written.

While we are on the subject, what is the exact definition of a full article? Would short in-side jokes and the like count? Also, would articles that later get deleted count? What about articles that are near sporks of other articles? Or stuff outside of mainspace (templates, unNews, Games, etc). --Mn-z 13:31, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Different namespace: Yes, that's an article. Well, templates probably aren't, but games and Untunes are.
Short in jokes...maybe. It probably depends on whether it went through uncreative copying or creative altering.
Deleted...probably.
Sporks...depends, how much of a spork was it? One section sporked out of 12 or something like that wouldn't effect it.Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! CUN Icons-flag-us NOTM 19:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
No offense, HELPME, but you're answering a question on Uncyclopedia policy that was asked by a user who's been here for two years and has made thousands and thousands of edits. You've made less than 1500 and have been here 2 1/2 months. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 19:53, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects