Forum:DISABLED USERNAME HACK

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 14:29, December 31, 2006 by Sannse (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > DISABLED USERNAME HACK
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2861 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


Um, could whoever messed with this please put it in their own monobook.js, not the site one? Thanks ever so much - David Gerard 09:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It might also be useful to fix the 200+ pages it's on then, or at least change it to "Uncyclopedian" or something. I'm quite glad it's gone, but there probably should have been a vote or something? Votes are always good. Spang talk 10:25, 23 Dec 2006
Changing it to Uncyclopedian wouldn't work. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
How about enabling it only in main and unnews spaces? Spang talk 10:54, 23 Dec 2006
  • I changed it to You for now, at least until all the articles it's in can be fixed, just because that was generally what I was changing it to when I went through them. There'll still be a lot of places it doesn't work, but at least it's better than DISABLED USERNAME HACK. -- Paw_print.jpg 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with what DG said. Put it in your own .js, not the sitewide one. Some of us like {{USERNAME}}, don't wreck it for everyone. I thought it worked particularly well in Game:Game Online/Multi Player, where you sign in as yourself. Why was it ruined for everyone? --User:Nintendorulez 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I want it back. Why the hell did you get rid of it, Sikon?! --AAA! (AAAA) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a stupid decision. This just means that the next favorite 1337 uncyc hack will get overused ad nausea until somebody sabotages that too. If this is the method that most of you prefer to negotiate feature abuse within this wiki, here is the quick-fix. This will safe you a lot of time. Pull the plug on uncyc because that's what you are doing in small quantities with bullshit like this. I for one hate the letter A and want to substitute this within all articles with a big fucking bold underlined X. --Vosnul 13:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the people who liked <insert name here>.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I posted this poll in another topic, here it is again, proving that people don't want username fully ruined for everyone:
<insert name here>?
 
20
 
29
 
76
 

The poll was created at 17:04 on December 23, 2006, and so far 125 people voted.

--User:Nintendorulez 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the general consensus supports bringing the template back. Why hasn't it been fixed yet? --User:Nintendorulez 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting never goes anywhere, give it another week and if the results stay the same I'll see what I can do about it. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it, but no "{{USERNAME}} is gay! Or {{USERNAME}} is the worst Uncyclopedian!". --GAMESPOT=666 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

YEAH! "{{USERNAME}} needs to grab some ankles!!" --HPSigHP talk KUN Icons-flag-pi 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

When fixing the USERNAME template on articles

Please do not replace the USERNAME template with nothing. That is so totally fucking annoying, and puts me into a rage. It is very much like blanking, because you blanked out the USERNAME template and didn't leave anything to replace it. I had to put in "Mr. Angrypants" in the Fuck Uncyclopedia article, because it looked like a comment with no name signed on it, just the motherfucking time and date. Do I have to be in a dammed bell tower with a sniper rifle or something to prove my point? We need to at least leave some text, it could be nonsense, it could just be the word "you" or the words "you mom" or whatever. Please don't let it be nothing and totally fuck up the motherfucking dammed article and thus make it unfunny. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was the only article where I left no replacement, and I did it because it was an unsigned, IP comment in the first place. I thought it was a reasonable alternative, and since that clearly isn't the case I'm sorry and I'm glad you found a way to fix it. -- Paw_print.jpg 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well apology accepted. I have to deal with a lot of issues and sicknesses this time of year anyway. I had one nerve left, and you got on it. At least you allowed me to relieve some of my stress in yet another Orion Blastar rant(TM) on the Internet. Most anonymous IP comments leave an IP address instead of a name, so even 127.0.0.1 would have been better than just nothing. That is the loopback device if anyone wonders what it is, and it could only have come from a local machine. It is the same as saying the user logged in wrote the comment and it is a good replacement for username or whatever. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that needs to be "fixed" is the fucking username template/script/voodoo/who-cares whatever. Wait 1 week, maybe 2. or do it now. The fixing of a problem that should probably not exist in the first place is a waste of, be it useless, energy and or resources. -- Vosnul 23:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How did it get broke in the first place is what I want to know. Did it get hax0r3d, or did someone make a change to it, or did our Wiki host make a change and screwed it up in the process? I mean yeah possibly someone here can fix it, but if it gets hax0r3d again, or the Wiki host makes another change, or someone screws with it again how can we prevent it from getting screwed up again? So maybe we should just use "you", "you mom", or "127.0.0.1" in place of the template? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It didn't get hacked. If you read up the page, there was an actual decision to get rid of it, which a lot of people are trying to reverse now. I started getting rid of the usages on articles when it was still showing up as DISABLED USERNAME HACK, because it didn't look like it was ever going to be replaced and it couldn't stay like that for long. It can be fixed, but it's in the site .js, so it takes an actual decision to get rid of it and an actual decision to get it back. -- Paw_print.jpg 09:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It takes an admin to be fooled by "{{USERNAME}} is holding his old fella" in order to take the template down. It takes some other Admins to restore the template whilst soiling there pants laughing at the other admin. -- Vosnul 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean at least one admin didn't get the joke and it made him/her disable the {{USERNAME}} template? Shouldn't the admins and users vote on if it needed to be disabled before some admin actually goes in and disables the damn thing? I mean since when did this become some fascist dictatorship instead of a community Wiki? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! I've been asking for a while as to who made the decision to kill it, and why it hasn't been replaced despite the overwhelming majority on the vote up top. --User:Nintendorulez 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was killed by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy? Which does not include all atheists, just the evil atheists that the good ones do not even know about. They are also known as the New World Order and the Illuminati, and secretly control that cabal of admins on Uncyclopedia that everyone says does not exist, but things like the Username template being killed without a community vote kind of prove it exists anyway? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of a Wiki so that anybody can edit it? If you see a usage of {{USERNAME}} that you dislike remove it yourself rather than getting rid of it across the entire site. Tomtyke 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What blatant revolutionary talk. You want to cause a uprising ? Ow,Young young Rebel !. But yes, it should be, and yes. It is even possible to disable ALL {{USERNAME}} just for you and you alone. -- Vosnul 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the main problem was that it was scaring new users away. -- Paw_print.jpg 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(Video of n00b on a web cam with her nose running, Blair Witch style) Oh geez, what kind of Wiki site is this? Here is an article with my user name in it! I am so scared! All of the other n00bz vanished and I am the only one left. I think I just shat myself. That is it, I'm never coming back to this site ever again! :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that if people are going to be scared away by something as small as that then they probably don't have a thick enough skin to get on with people here, but I can see how the template could cause problems. There probably should have been a vote before it was huffed, really. -- Paw_print.jpg 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that is how we usually do things here, vote on them. If we voted on it, and the majority said to kill it, we wouldn't even be having these conversations. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add a "WTF?" to the discussion. I've seen no vote to disable it, in fact most of Forum:IS "USERNAME" getting overused? boils down to "Yeah, it's getting overused, so let's put a warning on it to use it sparingly." Yet it was disabled, with no notice, justification or rationale given, and now there's busted pages all over the site. That's BS, IMHO.  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN  Eh?  Oh!  UnTunes! CannabagreenI Card-spades-up my cat! 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The biggest problem is not the renegade admin, some rusky boy I thought, having a powertrip fucking it up just for the Heck of it. Its the lack of proper fucking authority to clear this shitdeal up . I blame the last piece of drama last month in part that cleared the field of admins of, well, most of the talent out there. -- Vosnul 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah we need more admins like Todd Lyons to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Too bad he quit. He was a good admin, but some people gave him too much drama and crap, and he eventually quit. I mean if the template gets messed up, it should just be fixed, not killed. Even if it was scaring n00bz, we still should have had a vote on if we should kill it or not. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Look. Before this degenerates into a flamewar, we need to get some kind of official vote as to whether {{USERNAME}} gets brought back or left in limbo. To answer a few of the things that people have been yelling about:

  1. Most of the admins that left last month are back, with the exception of Todd Lyons, who actually is still here, but not as an admin, and Splarka, who left in the summer anyway, not last month.
  2. People have been going round fixing the broken articles and they're actually all done now, so that's not a problem anymore.
  3. Yes there should have been a vote, chances are that'll happen soon, in the meantime please try not to spontaneously combust, you might set the forum on fire.
  4. Yay commas!

-- Paw_print.jpg 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Noflames
Turn off the lights, take a deap breath, and relax.

(Or I'll ban your ass)
sannse@Wikia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects