Forum:A n00bish question on politeness and protocol.

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m ({{Forumheader|Help}})
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Village Dump}}
+
{{Forumheader|Help}}
   
 
After completing my [[online_petition|first article]], I'm now hankering to do more, and I noticed [[Blue_screen_of_death]]'s entry in the rewrite section. My question is, does the inclusion of this piece in the rewrite section warrent it for a complete rewrite? I'd like to present the BSOD as a helpful application generously included in all Windows applications, but this would mean removing much of the original text (which, really - isn't very funny). But is this acceptable? Or just a quick way to start a pissing contest?
 
After completing my [[online_petition|first article]], I'm now hankering to do more, and I noticed [[Blue_screen_of_death]]'s entry in the rewrite section. My question is, does the inclusion of this piece in the rewrite section warrent it for a complete rewrite? I'd like to present the BSOD as a helpful application generously included in all Windows applications, but this would mean removing much of the original text (which, really - isn't very funny). But is this acceptable? Or just a quick way to start a pissing contest?

Latest revision as of 16:32, January 9, 2007

Forums: Index > Help > A n00bish question on politeness and protocol.
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2783 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

After completing my first article, I'm now hankering to do more, and I noticed Blue_screen_of_death's entry in the rewrite section. My question is, does the inclusion of this piece in the rewrite section warrent it for a complete rewrite? I'd like to present the BSOD as a helpful application generously included in all Windows applications, but this would mean removing much of the original text (which, really - isn't very funny). But is this acceptable? Or just a quick way to start a pissing contest?

Lemon 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that because the article has been worked on by several users in the recent past (look at the history) it would raise some hackles if major organs were removed from it. (If an article is incoherent or not-good and has been abandoned for several months it's less likely anyone would give a damn.) As a personal preference I would rather find a virgin topic upon which to inflict my creativity, or perhaps find a single-paragraph loser of an article. But this is very much my personal opinion. The Muse striketh where the Muse doth strike. ----OEJ 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've been hitting random pages for a while now, and the only red links and single paragraph ones I've found are the ubiquitous "nonsense topics", which don't really interest me. Guess I'll keep searching.

Lemon 01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just rewrite it, and if it's better than before, it'll stay. If someone complains, try and merge the two into one. Spang talk 01:42, 30 Nov 2006
Yes, the worst that can happen is that somebody complains and the two have to be combined. Or split into two distinct articles. —rc (t) 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, by personal experience, I found myself in the same situation and just posted the page in VFD. As the page really sucked, it was voted and huffed - and we got a consensus there, it was not just me overwriting a page. After that I just created a new page with my own idea - and that version survived. herr doktor needsAbolt Rocket [scream!] 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Good points, all. Well, right now, I'm putting together a complete reconstruction of the BSOD article, and I guess I'll just post it when it's done and roll with whatever happens because of it. Lemon 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. And monitored. Let's see what happens. Lemon 11:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
i'm afraid nothing much is gonna happen if your expectations are very high. toning down your expectation, OTOH, might make something happen (like making you relentlessly toil and till, till you reach where no uncycopedian has gone before, without waiting for anything to happen really - remember the fun is in the journey, not the destination). while agreeing with spang above, i personally believe that it is perfectly OK to slash ALL previous text while rewriting (provided you do this without resorting to blanking - blank in bits n pieces if you have to, so nobody notices) since it's incumbent upon the previous contributors to contact you, to leave a message on the article's talk page and/or revert your edits. if they revert, promptly revert back till they start talking (with their mouths). if they talk with their asses, whack them. edit wars are rare here 'cos we aren't dealing with facts, only humour and sometimes attitudes. generally people who talk through their asses aren't funny though they might still have an attitude (funny people can also have an attitude -- don't infer the wrong conclusin). so that's the being polite and the correct protocol scene here for you. lastly, add your entree to "recent articles" here with a "(rw)" next to it. you're welcome -- mowgli 14:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects